Basically you are saying that anyone that doesn't watch tabloid news is an idiot? Because really, that's what you are implying, which is kind of funny when you think about it. There are a lot of people that don't keep up with Hollywood/tabloid news that are perfectly reasonable, sane, intelligent individuals.

What's really funny is when people are elitist about it.
"Anyone that doesn't know about X is an idiot!"
"Really? How would they have known it?"
"By staying glued to their TV set,that's how."
"I see."

You should study the history of anti-drug research. One of the original studies that claimed marijuana caused severe brain damaged basically put face masks on monkeys and had them inhaling nothing but smoke for a significant period of time. The cause of the brain damage was CO poisoning and general hypoxia, which should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain. No one breathes nothing but smoke when they smoke. That's what a lot of studies do, they give a subject 100x the dose that is used, or use some unusual delivery method, and perform the study on it, drawing absurd conclusions that aren't event remotely scientific.

The purpose? Funding, plain and simple. Studies that are anti-drug get lots of funding, and those that aren't, don't get approved (by the DEA when performed on humans) or funded. Why? Because the government funds the studies and the drug war is a political tool that they need evidence to support. A huge amount of science is shaped and steered through funding, and it absolutely biases the results.

If you are reasonably intelligent, this shouldn't surprise you. We've had quacks for the entire history of science and medicine, and many of them have used science to explain what is clearly a politically motivated status quo. Just look at all the studies that assumed minorities were inferior, and proposed to find out why (by measuring brain volume and other anatomical characteristics), without first checking the assumption that minorities were inferior.

I've had experience with pair programming. In my mind here are the pro's:
1. It keeps you engaged and prevents your mind from wandering.
2. It is a great way to teach junior level programmers, many of whom suffer from a lack of training and are thrown to the wolves in the beginning of their careers. I would have LOVED pair programming (in small doses) when I was starting out. It's a great way to learn things about a complex system that are not obvious.
3. Different people tend to approach problems differently, and this difference in perspective can make it easier to catch bugs that are not obvious to a single programmer.

The Cons:
1. When abused, it can reduce productivity by distracting coders and not allowing them the space they need to think.
2. It can create a hostile environment where the employee feels that they have no privacy, room to think, and where they are constantly being watched. This is part of why I think management loves it so much, they are outsourcing micro-management to their underlings.
3. It can reduce motivation of individual developers since the buck no longer stops with them, but instead is the group's (or pair's) responsibility. While diffusing some responsibility across the team is not a horrible idea, people tend not to be as motivated. I observed motivation take a big nose dive when the shop moved to XP, since people were no longer as accountable for finishing anything, they just had to come up with a BS explanation for what they did the past day during the scrum, and really, it's a lot easier to BS one day at a time than it is to explain just what the hell you've been doing the past two months.
4. Many poorly designed XP programming environments are inherently disrespectful, and are merely an attempt to turn a programming shop into a factory floor with no privacy. As a skilled programmer, I won't go along with this, and I actually refused to move into this kind of space at my last job, and instead left, along with the majority of seasoned developers.

Overall, I can get some of the benefits of pair programming by walking down the hall, grabbing another team member and saying, "Hey, could you take a look at this?", when I'm having trouble finding a bug. It shouldn't require them to sit there all day.

What's really sad, is that we have overworked people, and unemployed people. We have homeless people, and entire subdivisions sitting empty. Some of the people that are homeless actually worked on those houses. That's what happens when you have a society the doesn't care about justice, but instead about mindlessly following rules. I ask people,"Why not take the empty homes, and let people that actually worked on those homes live in them until we find a better use for them?" Most people react in horror, because there is a principle that they are defending. The principle is that it doesn't matter if people starve and die, nor does it matter all that much if someone acquired property through less than scrupulous means. The sanctity of their ill-acquired gains cannot be questioned, even if it means the guy who actually built the house is homeless. They mindlessly believe it produces the best outcome, but reality begs to differ.

People worry that if you take the decision of who gets property out of the hands of the market, even a little bit, that we'll descend into a totalitarian communist dungeon. But, there are more ways to slice the pie than competition and cooperation (or capitalism and communism). Our mistake as humans has been the idea that an unchanging set of rules will get the best set of results. I'm inclined to believe that any unchanging system that doesn't make a just outcome it's primary goal is subject to being gamed into oblivion. The rules, no matter what they are, should always be bent to get a just outcome.

Capitalism is a man made system just like any other. It is created by humans, and it is gamed by humans (quite easily). Ultimately people need to realize that it is up to all of us to figure out what we feel is a just outcome, and make sure that it happens, rather than leaving the outcome up to following a set of rules.

When I work 16 hours a day I'm not able to find time to get any housework done, and in general a lot of work on my personal todo list doesn't get done. There is such a thing as PERSONAL productivity, not just productivity for your employer. Of course, no one cares about the needs of workers. The needs of workers are invisible and completely left out of the definition of "productivity".

Really, let's think for two seconds. We have productivity levels that have skyrocketed (some of which is caused by overtime, but most of it due to automation and increased efficiency), 10%+ unemployment, college students that can't find work, and you are asking if 16 hour work days are productive?

Yes, those work days are a great brainwashing technique, just ask the U.S. army, or any medical residency training program, or your local fraternity. It's pretty well known that those kinds of hours (combined with sleep deprivation) are great for keeping people so broke down that they can't think for themselves. However, in the face of 10%+ unemployment, what are you, crazy? How about we employ the entire work force before we worry about making some of us work 16 hours a day.

I agree. The motives of big business are ridiculously transparent, and skeptics are nothing more than paid shills, yet another form of astroturfing. Businesses cut corners all the time to increase profits, and whether it's spilling oil in the ocean, or CO2 in the atmosphere, or crashing the economy, they couldn't give a shit less about the safety and well-being of the rest of us. They just don't want anyone forcing them to clean up their mess as it would eat into their massive record breaking profits. The thing is, that money has to be spent somewhere, and I'd much rather see that money spent creating jobs and hiring workers to clean up their mess, than see it spent on yachts and leer jets. Sure, the Yacht industry will take big hit, but the sacrifice is worth it in my opinion.

So, Forbes "solution" to the problems caused by an IPO is to do it earlier? The scenario described sounds like a great reason to NEVER put your company on the stock market, not to go public earlier. Of course, Forbes et al's solution is always to go with yet another market.

  "Got a privately held company that participates in a free market economy? Great, put it on the stock market. Stock market not working out? Great, we'll create another market to trade on the perceived risk. Still not working out? That's ok, we've got a solution. That's right, another market." I'm sure if we just keep creating more markets we'll solve this problem.

Sorry for the delayed reply. Fortunately we live in an area where the power is reliable, so throwing out food hasn't been necessary. We keep it running when it goes out for a few days since it's more convenient. However, in practical terms, we could probably save some money by throwing out our food and renting a room (assuming the hotel has power and prices for rooms haven't spiked). It's definitely not practical, and for a long term outage (weeks to months), we'd just have to learn to do without. We have all natural gas for our appliances and fire place. Our generator can't run the AC, but can run the furnace blower, so the central heat works too. We also have a few propane space heaters, so we would be quite a bit better off in the winter if we had a power outage. It's really the heat that is the killer in Missouri.

Oh yeah, one thing I found out about a few years ago is propane powered refrigerators. For someone that is living on a farm, or in a remote location, it might be a good investment. They are very simple devices, with no moving parts, so even though they cost more, they should last quite a bit longer.

First, let's get back to the original statement I made:
"skeptics" claim that the burden of proof is on those who say it will happen on a large scale, despite evidence that it IS happening on a large scale. This has never been the way science works. The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. They have no evidence, and are quite dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof back on the scientists, knowing full well that on a large scale it will take a much longer time to acquire the kind of evidence they are seeking.

I was not quite as overly-precise as I needed to be. Note that in the first sentence, I qualified it with "despite evidence that it IS happening on a large scale". I left that qualification out in the remaining text for the sake of brevity. However, the fact that it was the first statement of that paragraph is significant. That's the one you should lend more weight to.

Here's the problem with your argument. It's not that it's incorrect in a general sense, it's that you are applying it to something that I am not trying to say, and are conveniently ignoring the context within which I said it. You are ignoring the very precise opening statement that I made, and cherry picking statements that I made after that, ignoring the previous, carefully chosen parameters that I had made earlier. Do I really need to qualify every single statement, over and over, even after I've already said precisely what I meant, over and over? Do you really think it's efficient for me to have to qualify every single sentence? Yes, there is a burden of proof for both sides, I may have incorrectly implied that only the skeptic needs to meet a burden of proof, but I think that the only people that came away thinking I was saying this were intellectually dishonest hair-splitters. Would any reasonable person come away with the idea that I was arguing that scientists don't have any burden of proof? No. Would it be more precise to say that a larger burden of proof is on those who would like to create multiple complex theories where a single unifying theory would suffice? Yes, it would, but I think most rational people would have figured that out based on what I wrote.

Let's take another example:
We have Newtonian physics and we also have quantum physics. A larger amount of evidence was required for quantum physicists to explain why we needed a new model. While both "sides" have a burden of proof, it takes more proof to explain why we need to complicate our understanding of the world around us. This is because science doesn't just seek to explain things, it seeks to do so in the simplest way possible. (Einstein quote - "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler"). When we come up with data that refutes pre-established models, it requires more scrutiny, period, as we don't want to unnecessarily complicate our model by including bad data.

The fact is, scientists are making every reasonable effort that they can to prove this is happening, but it's not reasonable to expect all of this data to be collected before we need to make a decision. In terms of social policy, it's reasonable to think we may have to act much sooner than this.

What AGW advocates are saying is:
1. We have a reproducible model on the small scale
2. We have significant evidence that this model is working on the large scale
What "skeptics" are asserting is:
1. We can't apply the small scale model to the large scale model (they need to prove this, and they have a larger burden of proof to explain why an already established theory should be thrown out)
2. We won't pay attention to evidence that it is happening on a large scale until we can show it happening on a geologically significant time scale, perhaps some time after we go extinct.

In terms of item number one, when we formulate a hypothesis (often described as an "educated guess", in contrast to "completely naive guess that ignores all pre-existing theories") we start with what we already know, and pick a hypothesis that is consistent with what we already know. We don't start with a hypothesis that conflicts with our current understanding unless we have a damn good reason. Then, if the data is consistent with our hypothesis, we accept it. Alternative hypothesis have a larger burden of proof, and in the event that there is an established hypothesis that is consistent with the data, we bias ourselves towards it.

The thing to keep in mind is that "real" scientists ARE skeptics. That is, they apply the same rigorous standards to their own theories that they apply to other's. The armchair "skeptics" are claiming that their own lack of evidence doesn't matter, and that it's up to the other side to keep coming up with more data, which they will of course conveniently ignore. That's not being a "skeptic". That's being a biased, partisan, big business apologist. It's not skepticism if you only scrutinize the other side.

It's difficult to make generalized, unqualified statements, and that is the property that makes something difficult to prove, not the fact that it's negative or positive. Whether or not it's negative or positive doesn't matter, it's the fact that something is a sweeping statement that makes it hard to prove. Proving that something always happens is just as hard to prove as proving that something never happens.

Next, if you'll reread my post, you'll notice that what I was saying was qualified with the condition that we have a small scale example that is reproducible with a high degree of confidence. You then mis-represented what I was saying, by arguing against the idea that "the burden of proof is always on the skeptic". I didn't say that. I said, specifically, "The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. " That's VERY different than saying, "The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the skeptics." Your tactic is what is know as a straw-man fallacy, as you are making an argument against something that I did not say.

Look, one of the big differences between religion and science is that religion and mythology will often create new theories for everything. You have a god for lightning, thunder, volcanoes, etc. Or you have a single god who is doing a bunch of different things. The goal of science is to get to the essence of what is going on, and wherever possible, unify our understanding into as simple of a model as possible. We only create separate models when we absolutely have to, and any reasonable hypothesis for weather should start with the models that we already know and understand (such as the greenhouse effect on a small scale), not a blank slate. Then, when we see evidence that the small scale model does apply to larger systems, we should apply this model to both small and large systems (with less confidence for the large system) until we see evidence that says otherwise. We don't simply say, "Gee, we've only collected a few decades of official evidence, let's hold off for a few millenia."

Oops, substitute famine for pandemic in the text above.

The problem is that this isn't relevant to the social issue of global warming, and many "skeptics" will claim that it is relevant. Even if the change in temperature ends up being a blip on the radar in geological time, it only takes a few years of drought to decimate food stores and cause a world-wide pandemic. THIS is the issue that should be relevant to us these days, and I'm afraid that all these newly minted arm-chair scientists (more accurately described as big business apologists) are going to ensure that we delay action until it is too late.

Another thing I should say is that we have a very reliable model for showing that increased CO2 can cause warming on a small scale. "skeptics" claim that the burden of proof is on those who say it will happen on a large scale, despite evidence that it IS happening on a large scale. This has never been the way science works. The burden of proof is on "skeptics" to explain why a reproducible, verifiable model on a small scale won't work on a large scale. They have no evidence, and are quite dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof back on the scientists, knowing full well that on a large scale it will take a much longer time to acquire the kind of evidence they are seeking.

An analogy would be if we said that since Pluto's orbit is 248 years, then we've probably only recorded it orbiting the sun a few times (arguably less than that if we only count modern record-keeping), and so therefore we haven't collected enough data to determine that orbital mechanics apply to Pluto. After all, maybe the 7th observed cycle around the sun it will veer off into space, violating all of our current models. This type of reasoning is nonsense. Science always seeks to apply the simplest, most general theory to all systems. Science only creates a new theory if it absolutely has to. The burden of proof would be on the orbital mechanics "skeptics" to show why it would behave differently on a large scale, not on those who can show without a doubt that it happens on a small scale, and have shown that all measurable results indicate it is happening on a large scale. The idea that we should start with two separate models, one for large scale and another for the small scale, is precisely the opposite of what science seeks to do, and is a severe mis-representation of science.

Can you say something less superficial, with even the slightest amount of substance? Specifically, what is your issue with it? You don't have to tell us all of your problems with it, just name maybe the top 3-5.

I have a generator. It's only 8500 watts ($500 at lowes), but is enough to power a few circuits and windows AC's (through a properly wired panel with transfer switch). That said, have you ever looked at the costs for running a generator? It's obnoxiously high. It goes through roughly one gallon per hour. That's $96 a DAY, or $2880 a month to power half my home, central AC not included. We save by turning it off for a few hours at a time, but need to keep it running regularly so that our food doesn't thaw. You can get more efficient generators, but they can run into the thousands. In the event of a long-term crisis, the same people that brought us the housing crisis would start "investing" in fuel commodities, which would cause gas prices to skyrocket. Then you have increased consumer demand further ratcheting up prices. Really, the only reason that generators are viable is because very few people use them. If everyone had one, the gas prices would spike to unbelievable levels (unless you feel like storing a few hundred gallons) every time there was a significant power outage, and it's not realistic to think that everyone can afford to put a few thousand dollars into power generation (or tens of thousands in the case of solar).