Comment Whales (Score 1) 253
it's a few big spenders. In the game industry they call them "Whales". That and spyware/viruses selling scams that folks fall for.
they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world
But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? (I did read the paper, by the way.)
The models havenâ(TM)t predicted one thing, in 30+ years.
Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data
You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850?
No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that.
In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture.
Yes, indeed. If you should ever start actually using "all the available data", and were honest with yourself, I think you might start softening your tone.
I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view.
I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect?
You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850?
Ultimately, the liberal philosophy is that society can and should take care of everyone. The libertarian philosophy is that everyone should only be required to take care of themselves. From an antagonist perspective, liberals have their heads in the clouds, and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.
No, like so many others you mischaracterize what Libertarians are all about.
Regardless, the Tragedy of the Commons stemmed from a socialist "commons" policy... nothing even remotely Libertarian. In a Libertarian society such commons would scarcely if ever exist, and if any did, no party would be allowed to exploit them at the expense of others.
I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.
The first thing to note is that you are confirming my own comment, to a rather laughable degree.
The second thing is: you prove your ignorance by speaking of "conservative libertarians". There is no such animal. There are libertarian-leaning conservatives, but it does not work the other way around.
As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.
And maybe you should learn something about people you are speaking to before assuming they are just repeating media talking points. In fact I was speaking strictly from personal experience, much of it gleaned from right here on Slashdot. From comments like yours.
The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states:
Yep. Because people are sick and tired of "Progressive" liberals and their provably failed policies. I mean not just failing now, but that have historically failed, for many decades.
But on the other hand, the largest single voting bloc (>40%) are people who identify themselves as "independent" or "libertarian". In other words, not members or followers of either of the "Big 2" parties.
Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK,
How do you know? Again you confirm my original comment by conflating libertarians with conservatives (a false notion), and then go further to suggest that YOU HAVE EVER SEEN A LIBERTARIAN POLICY. That's a hoot.
The major Perl conference is coming up. If you want to network with people and companies that are still active with Perl, that would be a great place for you to be.
Just a lot of really bad arguments.
To me, the worst of the lot is the statistical "reasoning" which is all based on the presumption that these events are equally distributed. The thing is: we know that they are not uniformly distributed... and even worse, we don't know how they are distributed.
Sure, we do know of a few particular cycles of tendency, but those don't predict individual events.
So the very basis of TFA's statistical reasoning is nonsense. We don't have any way to actually calculate the probability of such an event. We don't have enough information.
I've not really followed Antarctica. However, back in the 80s I'm pretty sure it was "tens of millenia to melt all of Antarctica if it's possible at all". More recently I've seen comments along the lines of "It can't happen in less than 5-10 thousand years" with the assumption that it will happen eventually if we continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Currently, global sea ice is well above normal. That is largely because antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high, while arctic sea ice is slightly lower than (but approximately within one standard deviation of) average.
Now, while I know that overall ocean temperature and surface ice may not be a direct correlation, it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
