Comment Re:This is related (Score 1) 294
Exposure is irrelevant to rights.
No, it's not. Quarantine for disease is a well known case where rights can be legally violated.
Exposure is irrelevant to rights.
No, it's not. Quarantine for disease is a well known case where rights can be legally violated.
Quoting somebody out of context is a fallacy
You have to show first that it was quoted out of context.
For all you know that sentence read
Stop wasting my time. The whole email was quoted in full in one of the links I gave.
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
It's not high drama, he's just sending over some data per request. But "Mike's trick" involves replacing or averaging near past temperature proxy data with temperature data. In particular, Jones states he's applying it to problematic tree ring data ("Keith's" series which moves counter to temperature after 1960). That means losing data and hence, why I called it "scientifically dubious".
Also keep in mind that for purposes of evaluating the ability of these various series to approximate global mean temperature is solely dependent on the narrow spread of time where we have overlapping both the recent past paleoclimate data and modern instrument and satellite data. Taking twenty years off such a series removes almost all of its correlation with satellite data. Similarly, losing 40 years (at the time) of tree ring data chops a significant amount off of the 150 or so years of instrument data as well as the entire satellite record.
I was disagreeing on whether delaying or refusing payment means they weren't honoring contracts.
Ok, so you disagree, It's still a breech of contract to systematically use terms of the contract to delay or avoid honoring terms of the contract. Proving it in court is a different matter and I gather that is just as hard to do today as it has ever been.
Yes, but you seem to be suggesting a conspiracy dating back to the start of climate science in the 1800s which if true involves millions of scientists
Of which, a few dozen at a few government-funded research institutes are the only ones who need be corrupted.
Your post is kind of like claiming that NSA spying couldn't have happened because it would require a conspiracy of billions of people, including the people being spied upon, while ignoring that the spying need only be done by a few NSA contractors - the rest of the participants need not even know that it exists.
And when one looks at the blatant politicization of climate research even to the point of using propaganda terms like "climate change" or "climate disruption" in scientific communication and media reports, one has to ask, why wouldn't the politicians who control funding for climate research and who benefit so greatly from public hysteria generated by climate research claims, not buy the research they want?
And FYI, I'm not opposed to any form of quarantine, but doing so only with circumstantial evidence would be a Bad Thing.
The evidence is in your face. She worked with Ebola patients not just someone who happened to be in the country.
So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection?
Sounds like he is. Let us also keep in mind that quarantines work a whole lot better than their absence does. And would it really be better to endure the privations of a two or three Ebola epidemic in the States, for example, than impose a quarantine on everyone who enters the US from affected regions? I strongly doubt that.
I think it's more likely the contract allowed the insurance companies to avoid paying as much as possible.
Except that the poster indicated the insurance company eventually paid out. Again, this is a game they can play right now. It's still not in the interest of the insurance company to pay out.
About 300 experiments have tried to determine the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, so far, but large discrepancies in the results have made it impossible to know its value precisely. The weakness of the gravitational interaction and the impossibility of shielding the effects of gravity make it very difficult to measure G while keeping systematic effects under control. Most previous experiments performed were based on the torsion pendulum or torsion balance scheme as in the experiment by Cavendish in 1798, and in all cases macroscopic masses were used. Here we report the precise determination of G using laser-cooled atoms and quantum interferometry. We obtain the value G = 6.67191(99) x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 with a relative uncertainty of 150 parts per million (the combined standard uncertainty is given in parentheses). Our value differs by 1.5 combined standard deviations from the current recommended value of the Committee on Data for Science and Technology. A conceptually different experiment such as ours helps to identify the systematic errors that have proved elusive in previous experiments, thus improving the confidence in the value of G. There is no definitive relationship between G and the other fundamental constants, and there is no theoretical prediction for its value, against which to test experimental results. Improving the precision with which we know G has not only a pure metrological interest, but is also important because of the key role that G has in theories of gravitation, cosmology, particle physics and astrophysics and in geophysical models.
A personal example was my mom's employer was constantly changing insurance companies to "save money". My mom was sometimes paying ever so slightly less, yay, save $20/month, but every time she went into the doctors, she had to fight tooth and nail to get the insurance to pay, during which time she couldn't go back to the hospital because of her outstanding "debt", that her insurance was supposed to cover 100%.
In other words, the insurance offered plenty, but refused to honor its contract. What has changed about that? It's just as illegal to violate a contract now as it was then.
It's these insurance companies that were effectively fraudulent shell companies that got removed from the market. My mom's insurance premium went up with the law change, but now she has a semi-decent insurance company to work with because her employer is forced to only select from government regulated companies.
Again, what has changed? Those past insurance plans were just as "government regulated" as current insurance plans. My belief is that we will find the same games played now as were played then.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
