1 - Perfect
2 - Paid For
3 - I forget
1 - Perfect
2 - Paid For
3 - I forget
Sure, plenty of kids and teens would not get educated, but they're probably not get anything now either. You can't make a student that won't learn educated anymore than you can make a morbidly obese person who refuses to eat right healthy. Sometimes society is better off with such people being allowed to make themselves into warnings for others.
Setting aside the sheer depravity of this argument, we have ample historical context for what happens when society cuts off the neediest. France, Haiti, Cuba, China, Russia, Algeria, Egypt, India, Scotland, The Phillipines, Mexico--just to name a few places where social and political inequality have driven massive, bloody revolts.
Wealth and political power calcify with the already wealthy and powerful. The middle and working classes slowly lose what wealth they have through attrition. Poverty becomes a virtually inescapable sink of destitution. Eventually, enough people end up having quite literally nothing to lose that you get vicious, deadly, destructive revolutions that take generations to recover from.
If you insist on taking a "pragmatic" view of not even bothering to -try- to improve the lives of the impoverished, try to at least understand the historical ramifications of what you're arguing for.
The trials that were conducted were a treatment, not a cure. A cure insinuates the organism is no longer susceptible to the disease, which is not the case with these treatments. A better article, that represents our research and treatments, and quotes us better, is the MNN article below.
I expect their cure to be temporary.
Fungus, if it's stopped by bacteria is due to living space and biological niche being filled.
Just like someone on lots of antibiotics is at higher risk of thrush infections (fungus) and can be helped by consuming "probiotic" foods, the inoculation will depend on the bacteria PERSISTING on the bat and staying there.
For whatever reason, bacteria that used to fulfill the role for bats is gone and the niche was exploited by the fungus.
Finding something more effective than the usual anti-fungal drugs is a breakthrough, but they might still have to make this bacteria persistent or re-spray bat housing to keep the bats healthy.
wait it out, enter the auction. much smarter business.
why would Microsoft double down on a dying dud? nothing there but dead weight, a black hole.
patents are cheaper in Chapter 7.
Didn't you criticize me earlier for "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", saying it was a "dick move"?
Indeed, I did. But an "ad hominem" is not always a dick move, and not always falacious. It is acceptable to offer valid, topical criticism of a person's character or skills when it is material to the argument and the person has been offered as an authority. In other words, when you offer Dr. Spencer as a scientific expert, you make his credentials as a scientist fair game for criticism. So, in this case, offering evidence that Spencer may be a poor scientist is not only acceptable, it is generally expected as a rebuttal. You, on the other hand, wrote "SkS is a really, really bad site." That's not valid or topical criticism, and therefore is actually a fallacious ad hominem. So because you failed to provide valid criticism, it is in fact a "dick move". Eventually, you provided some weak criticism of a highly acclaimed paper by some of the people at SkS as justification for this evaluation, but even if I accepted that the criticism were in good faith, which I do not, it would barely be relevant.
Frankly, you seem to have a problem with understanding context and circumstances.
Additionally, I linked to three non-SkS sites that detail gross errors in the construction of that graph or the similar graph it was originally based off of, and your response is an article that mistakenly criticizes an SkS article that criticizes Spencer for errors made in a completely different forum, and claims their response to a different event contains cherry-picked data because it does not start in the same year as a graph which they make no reference to. Frankly, the article you cited appears to be written by someone who takes very little care in his writing or his reasoning. For example, it really looks like couldn't even be bothered to read the title of the article he's criticizing because the title clearly says they are debunking mistakes that Spencer made in a public appearance. One can only assume the author is grossly incompetent or grossly negligent. Of course, none that really matters, because I didn't link to that article on Skeptical Science in the first, so his invalid criticism actually has nothing to do with any of the valid criticism I provided that explains how Dr. Spencer has (intentionally or not) manipulated the data in that graph to make his position look better, and in the process produced a very misleading graph.
And according to the article you linked, if you really believe it, you should believe that the new graph that you linked contains cherry picked data (and is therefore invalid) since it also does not begin in 1979, but expecting any sort of consistency from you is clearly expecting too much.
Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.
Lol. Your interpretation is baffling. If I say it is "extremely likely" that you will get more than half your money back, would you interpret that to mean you are likely to get 100% of your money back? Or that you are likely to get at least 50% of your money back?
If your lawyer tells you that is "exetrmely likely" that you get more than half your money back, and that his best estimate is that you'll get all of it. Do you then conclude that you'll only get half?
Your problem is you are applying informal English assumptions to a formal document, and then using that to try to discount the very next sentence in the same paragraph.
"More than half the warming" since 1950 is their official, quantified position. You are ignoring the words right there in front of your face.
Read it again:
The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).
The words "Extremely likely" qualify that there is a between 90% to 100% certainty that the statement is accurate, and as you should be aware, 100% is more than half. You are merely pretending that there is a different meaning because you don't want to acknowledge that you are incredibly and spectacularly wrong and that you are embarrassing yourself in public.
"God-damned idiot"? Weren't you saying something about "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", and how those are "dick moves"? And I used to think right-wingers were inconsistent hypocrites...
That's not an ad hominem or a smear attempt, it's an insult, because you are a ridiculously stubborn moron. I can only imagine how much trouble you have typing due to the puddles forming on your keyboard. How anybody conclude that you are anything but an idiot? When you are presented with clear evidence of your error, you choose to pretend the words don't mean what they mean, instead of admitting that you made a mistake. Frankly, I'm giving you more respect that you deserve.
you didn't say wireless phone...
I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!
This is nothing more than vapid posturing. You don't like the site because it's regularly used to prove how wrong you are.
I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report.
The is absolutely no ambiguity in the report you complete and utter moron. It's right there in black and white. You just choose to ignore the words in front of your face because you are a god-damned idiot.
It's not the country, It's the drooling morons that we have running the country.
We get the politicians we deserve.
You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).
Given you demonstrated inability to read an understand entire paragraphs, I sincerely doubt that the summaries are at odds with the reports as often as you believe them to be. I find it more likely that are motivated to see disagreements where there are none.
Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"
I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".
Did you finish reading the paragraph? Apparently not. The next line says:
The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).
Then did you look at the graph? Apparently not. The graph shows total anthropogenic warming as higher than observed warming.
It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass?
What else should I call someone who takes a single sentence out of context and tries to use it to prove the exact opposite of what his source says? You are categorically, 100% wrong. The source you chose to support your argument explicitly and in plain english says that I am right and you are wrong. Then they put a graph next to it to reinforce that fact, and somehow you manage to miss both? You're wasting my time, jackass.
Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?
Because you choose to act like an ass? Your only source explicitly says you're wrong, so why are you wasting my time?
Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...
Here's a tip: If you want to provide evidence of a trend, you need more than 1 data point.
So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Same here, this is a claim of a different trend with exactly one data point.
In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.
Personally, I wouldn't use a blog post that speculates about what a not-yet-released report might say as evidence for my case.
Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.
The problem is that people like you who apparently wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass, keep claiming that good science is bad and bad science is good, then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no integrity...
Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work": http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...
That is one very long bitch-fest with a lot of argument by anecdote. The author is clearly angry and ranting, but frankly, I didn't see any point where he quantified the impact of his findings. The approach seems to be to throw accusation after accusation and then claim that the study must be garbage because of the number of accusations thrown at it. Additionally, when the author immediately makes the accusation of fraud whenever he discovers an error, it only serve to discredit his position and demonstrate a strong bias. I strongly suspect the reason why the author has gotten very little response from the journal is that he failed to show that the errors that he discovered were material to the results. Almost 12,000 papers were categorised, if 20 of them were categorised or improperly included then that's an error rate of 0.16%, which is an acceptable margin of error for most endeavours. Lastly, the author of that rant seems to engage in the same kind of selective reading and selective reasoning that you demonstrate here as well. The paper explicitly says that "Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity", and yet much of the linked blog post is ranting about the SkS people talking about comparing and justifying their ratings. I looked at a number of the accusations and what I found was that the sentences were often taken out of context and blatantly wrong accusations made about them, which frankly makes it look like the author is significantly more fraudulent than the fraud he's claiming to have found.
Additionally, you moved the goalposts here, I was talking about the SkS site which you claim is "really, really bad" but to show that you had to link to a site criticising a paper produced by some of the people at SkS. A study and their entire site are not the same thing at all, which just makes this seem like a smear attempt, an ad hominem, if you will. Dick moves like this are why you don't get respect, you just come off as an asshat who's trying to "win" at any cost.
Interestingly enough, I just heard about a study of the effect of the measles vaccine in a country that recently started vaccinating against measles showed a 50% drop in child mortality after the introduction of the vaccine. It has long been known by the experts that measles is a "gateway disease" in that wild infections of measles re-tune your immune system to fight measles and only measles. This leads to an increased mortality rate from secondary infections because the survivors are effectively immune system compromised against anything that is not measles. However, the study found that the effect doesn't end between 6 months to 12 months after the infection as was previously thought, but continued at a less severe level for addition 4-5 years according to the epidemiological data they gathered.
Even if measles itself isn't fatal, being infected can make you more susceptible to other diseases and more likely to suffer the more severe effects of those diseases. So yes, we should continue vaccinating against a disease that we have eradicated in North America because it might be re-introduced into the population by someone from a different country. The risks do justify the precaution.
You know what does get graphed though? The proxy reconstructions up till the year 1900 are graphed, and then the instrumental record is graphed from the year 1900 onwards. As you have observed, it makes for a very, very scary and compelling looking graph. Starting after the year 1900 the trend radically changes, so much you would almost wonder if there was a methodology change starting at that point on the graph... Then you realize it's not just human emissions that started roughly then, but the methodology cut over. And Mann has been selling that straight faced to people for over a decade now.
We don't need to use proxies to estimate the termperatures when we have actual temperature records. It seems like you're trying to make something sinister out of using the best available data.
In addition to the availability of actual direct measurements since the 1900s, which greatly reduces the value of more recent proxy values, there are also some problems with getting recent data from some of the proxies. For instance, there is the divergence problem in dendroclimatology which seems to show that pollution (or other factors) may be inhibiting tree growth since the industrial revolution. I imagine there's probably some difficulty with ice cores as well, since it may be difficult to get recent temperature measurements from glaciers that are shrinking.
Of course, there are actually people studying these problems and even the quality of the calibration period which is used to match instrumental records to proxy values, you might want to try searching with the "proxy calibration" keyword, or reading up on the divergence problem in dendroclimatology.
It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten