> Because when you put in an AGW term, the models do much better than if you leave out any AGW term

And what if they did better by subtracting in the average clown shoe size at the time to the computed average global temperature?

> If you can demonstrate that models with the average shoe size of red-headed clowns as a factor do better than those without, then I will absolutely accept it as a parameter

Then I believe this proves you are an idiot.

> Kind of have to, mathematically

Only if you don't understand math.

> How is it you are so ignorant of what is, not only the basic tenet of mathematical modeling, so completely intuitively obvious, that factors which make the model fit significantly better are kept, those that don't are dropped? Are you expending a lot of mental energy to maintain this impenetrable denseness? Why?

I get it. Rather than understanding why a model that fits best doesn't mean the model is correct or even close, you spend time convincing yourself you should dismiss me.

Enjoy:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All you said was that other evidence could be used to prove the crime and wouldn't be needed from the person accused. Well of course that gets around the 5th Amendment issue. What the hell is your point? Are you just looking for me to say you got around the 5th Amendment issue? Ok. If you don't do the thing that causes the 5th Amendment issue, then of course you "got around" it. Congratulations. But just asserting that other evidence will prove it seems a bit odd, which is why you come off as just trying to win something. I'm not interested.

Evaluating what was learned in standard courses is a big problem.

Got some source to back this up, other than inferring based on the punishment? Because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

> As I said, "models without agw are completely useless for the past 50 years" How does this not show that it's due mostly to man?

Models without the average shoe size of red-headed clowns are completely useless for the past 50 years. How does that not show that it's mostly due to clown shoe size?

Incidentally, what size are you wearing?

> If it kills jobs, the states with higher minimum wage will have higher unemployment. Simple as that.

This is incredibly ignorant. I am constantly shocked at how little otherwise intelligent people understand about statistics. It is entirely possible that every single high min wage state has lower unemployment and yet the higher min wage could still kill jobs. I'll give you a few weeks to try to think through why that is. And once you realize what I said is true, then you will realize how ignorant your assertion was.

And, even after you realize how little you understand about data and the world around you, my bet is firmly on you continuing to tell me that you know what's right with min wage policy and I'm an idiot.

Sorry, but I do not find you credible, and you seem to be more interested in winning than understanding the problem with your plan. I gave it a shot.

> Consider that psychology is largely bad science (subjective, lacking rigor, bias, and coming to arbitrary conclusions based on already flawed data is so insanely common that it's near useless)

I assume you are talking about personality psychology and, possibly, developmental psychology. Biopsychology, neurophysiology, psychopharmacology, and cognitive psychology are pretty rigorous.

I know it must be difficult to get a real world perspective from your mom's basement, but in the real world generalizations have an actual function. Particularly when you are deciding whether or not a government agency should get new important powers that could be abused, knowing that government agencies tend to abuse their power is a useful generalization.

What is the point of your distinction? The entire philosophy behind small government is that it is completely idiotic to distrust people to do the right thing and try to solve it by giving people a shitload of unnatural powers. Your distinction seems to imply you do not understand why people argue against giving government power.

Crossing the border without permission from the federal government is a violation of federal law. I am not sure what definition of "illegal" you are using...

BREAKING NEWS: you get what you pay for, and that isn't limited to hardware

The only exception to the rule is the IRS and audits, so you were just unlucky with what you chose to extrapolate from, I guess.

Showing you proof that I paid an illegal immigrant $10/hr, would prove two things: (1) I did not violate min wage laws, (2) I violated employment laws by knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. Therefore, being forced to show this document would incriminate myself, even though it absolves me from your charge.

> In other words, the employer is not guilty just because someone claims they were working for them and they had no records of payment. There's still the need to prove that the employer was in on the deal.

All that suggests is that I employed an illegal. It doesn't say anything about what I paid them. Just because I cannot prove I paid them more than min wage does not get me into trouble for violating min wage laws. I do not understand why you think the absence of evidence is evidence of wrongdoing. That is only the case if evidence is destroyed by the person it's assumed to incriminate (e.g., if Lois Lerner destroyed her hard drive, it can be assumed its contents were bad for her), and even then the judge has to give that direction. Otherwise, juries are explicitly told they cannot view absence of evidence as negative.

Governments abuse their power. I did not come to this conclusion from this incident. This incident is yet another example of innumerable examples in history. You think this new scenario is an exception based on... I don't know what.

If you have a model showing warming, you still have to show that it's due mostly to man, and you have to show that making a given change would slow, stop, or reverse it. That is all very difficult to do. But the current state of the science is that they can't even reliably predict the warming. That doesn't mean they are wrong. I have my method of study be flipping a coin and I could end up with the right conclusion. But the burden is on those who want to radically change energy consumption habits and/or cost structure, and that's where people, including me, aren't convinced. Trying to turn it around as if the burden is on "the deniers", as you say, is an old enough trick that I don't think anyone will fall for it.