There's been no warming for 17 years. My "global warming is a hoax" model is also still within it's uncertainty range. I'll be the first to admit it's a crappy model, but hey, it's equally as predictive and that's what matters to science.
You cannot ignore the cost of the loan, even if you have the money in the bank you are loaning it to yourself.
I don't get your point. A pre-tax return of roughly 15% annually is pretty good even if you do have to borrow the money.
I posted 2 distinct links supporting a reasonable fact
Not good enough. Both the links don't actually show what you think/claim they show. Just look at what you quote, being paid on occasion by an organization you dislike is far short of the evidence needed to back your original claim that Watts was a "paid shill".
Tax em all! As the US goes broke, anything and everything than can be changed to tax people more will be changed (yes, even the rich will be taxed more when we're broke enough, not that that will help much). What? Spend less instead? Which politician is going to give up those wonderful tax dollars flowing to his donors? The left? The right? Didn't think so.
And there is literally no threshold of evidence that is sufficient to convince you of a relatively benign point because you're so terrified of cognitive dissonance, that one blatant shill being a shill is too much for you.
You first have to try. Rational argument and evidence is what it takes. You have at best presented a modest amount of evidence that falls far short of what would be needed to back your claims.
And once again, a Slashdotter plays amateur psychologist while simultaneously exhibiting the symptoms they claim (note how often this word keeps coming up in my descriptions of your words) to see in me. Physician heal thyself.
Biology is not reducible to economics. Genes have no concept of debt, for example. Trying to force everything into economics is fundamentally flawed, because money is a human invention.
All these observations are irrelevant to economics. Nor am I reducing biology to economics. This is a single enormous economic system, not the whole of biology.
Economics doesn't demonstrate that there are corrupt scientists, history does.
More accurately the history of economics.
Do you have an example of an overwhelming majority of scientists in a field who were corrupt?
Economics.
Hence, your claim is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence.
Which is readily provided by a study of the history of economics.
Watt is so much of a shithead that I'm willing to bypass my "message not person" rule due to extremeness and consistency of his particular problems.
Yea, right. I see no evidence here that you follow any such rule.
Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
You may have forgotten that you wrote "Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise." I haven't however. Merely getting paid to speak is not a paid shill or a serial liar. I see evidence here instead of libel.
Man, you'd think something had happened to the economy between 2007 and 2009 to make the situation different.
You mean between 2001 and 2009.
Hey, no worries. In another 30 years, I'll have no objections whatsoever to climate change science no all the politics it's driving. (Also, I'll be dead, but that's mere coincidence.)
I'm willing to limit the conversation to 'in the womb'...
In case it wasn't obvious, that was the "life support" part. Regardless of how one feels about actively killing the fetus, I would support the right of the mother to remove it from the womb and leave it to its own devices—even given that it can't possibly survive on its own.
Also, we don't allow the killing of unwanted infants, so your logic stumbles a bit.
That's a separate issue—and you're committing the is/ought fallacy—but I'll address it anyway. The same rule applies. I would consider it morally and ethically wrong to actively kill an infant, though I obviously lack any standing to interfere should someone else choose to do so. However, I would support the right of the parents to withdraw their support and abandon the infant to its own devices. Put another way, the infant has the right to life, so no one else can take its life, but the parents have no obligation to provide it with whatever it needs in order to live. Neither, of course, can they stop others from doing so; taking the child to be raised voluntarily by others would be perfectly fine so long as you don't try to punish the parents for abandoning it.
No mistake here, Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise.
And your link doesn't back your claim.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
When your link starts with amateur ad hominem attacks like the above, you just know it's going to be a pile of useless drivel. For example, they assert that Watts is "on the payroll" of the Heartland Institute while neglecting to mention that the evidence for that particular assertion is fake (they do so in a particularly cowardly way by citing this story which in turn makes the linkage without mentioning that the actual document which explicitly makes the connection probably was forged by Peter Gleick).
I wasn't addressing that particular claim, because it's far more important to communicate that Watts is a shithead who will engage in any lie he imagines he can get away with.
Well, I think there are more important things than whether or you can "communicate" that Watts is a shithead. You seem to be quite capable of communicating that a certain Slashdot poster going by the name "i kan reed" is a shithead, but having a bit less luck with that Watts thing. Maybe you should switch to stuff that's a bit more productive, like rational argument?
They are often left out in main stream journalism in the interest of simplifying the reporting.
Such as the IPCC executive summaries? Or certain climatologists testimonies to legislatures?
That's a non-answer. The answer has to be based on the physical limitations of the field you are studying.
If the field is physically limited so that it can't ever generate predictions that meet my expectations, then it is useless for use by me in prediction. I don't believe climatology qualifies. Instead I think instead this is another poor excuse for not doing due diligence before spreading FUD about climate change.
However rudimentary it is, if left alone it will most likely develop into a human.
No, only if provided with life-support for several months, plus intensive parental care for several years, will it most likely develop into a human. Left alone it will almost certainly die.
The "what if this happened to me" argument doesn't apply because the only people capable of asking that question are at the point where they really can survive and even prosper if they are simply left alone. In other words, it can't happen to them.
The right to life doesn't imply a right to life support.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
