How are the Democrats gerrymandering Kansas when it's controlled by the Republicans?
How are the Democrats gerrymandering Kansas when it's controlled by the Republicans?
So, you're saying it's less corrupt because everyone else is also corrupt?
His story is credible, but still kind of scummy. He claims he had an account on the site so he could check if his client's political enemies had profiles on the site. Presumably, so they could either blackmail or expose them for political advantage.
Oh please! You do understand the nature of marketing, don't you? You gotta go with what works.
What astonishing douchebags.
Clearly, he understands it completely.
Where was the cheating? Even George RR Martin admits that the Sad Puppies did everything within the rules.
Are you kidding? Do you really think "technically, they aren't cheating" is going to calm anyone who thought the puppies were stuffing the nomination box? Because if you do, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
Good thing most of us can read better than you, then.
If it were true, it would be a good thing, indeed.
Although congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for most of us, I wasn't even aware there was an election.
For instance, you need to brush up on the meaning of "I think".
The emperor has no clothes and the imaginary saviours of humanity are being forced to take a long hard look in the mirror - and it's not a pretty sight - it's a fine start to the week.
You should probably also stay off the LSD, friend, it's apparently impeding your ability to read, understand and think.
On the other hand, maybe it's a simple as people become pissed off when they think other people are trying to cheat?
The option I like is approval voting, in which each individual voter is allowed to vote for *all* the candidates he thinks are good enough.
It sounds like you don't know how the voting actually works. It's ranked balloting, you rank your favourites in order and if you're #1 choice doesn't win, your second choice gets your vote and keeps going until you reach the last choice you approve of. In my opinion, it's actually a better system than approval balloting because it produces fewer ties.
So, you're claiming that nominees that over 50% of the voters decided were undeserving didn't win any award and it's all Scalzi's fault for explaining the rules to everyone? I think most of us can live with that.
So your entire problem is that you don't think they're comparing the proxies to the actual recorded temperatures in the best manner. Why didn't you say so in the first place? All of the dicking around with accusations of dishonesty and fraud just make you look like a conspiracy nut case.
You only ever linked to Skeptical Science. Your italicized quote of Ljungqvist has no reference to anywhere to prove he stated, or more importantly backed it up with anything.
The quote appears in the linked blog post and a simple Google search would have shown you that it comes from "A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE" published by the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography.
Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well defined peak in the period 950–1050 AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 C. The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions
Sorry, I must forgive the person you responded to for thinking the science suggested that the MWP warming in 950-1050AD equalled or exceeded mid-20th century warming, seeing as it says exactly that in the scientific journal article he linked to!
That would have been a great argument 55 years ago. In case you haven't noticed we no longer live in the 1950s, so if you want a valid understanding of climate change, you need to compare historical temperatures to temperatures from this century.
For those that read this and wonder how Ljungqvist can write this in a paper yet still post the quote you gave to a blog some place, it's because he's pulling on Michael Mann's stunt of comparing apples to oranges. You use a thermometer to measure temperatures since 1900AD and you use proxy records to estimate the temperature from before and declare that the thermometer measurements are an unprecedented trend change... Or maybe, like statisticians corrected Mann on, the proxy records lack the sensitivity and precision of thermometers and comparing the two is dishonest so you save that part for your blog postings...
Form my perspective the dishonesty here is entirely yours. The divergence between proxies and actual temperatures is an actual area of study within climate science. Your claims display a shocking level of ignorance and bias. It is a simple fact that we must compare the two because we don't have any temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer for reasons that should be obvious. Sure, temperature reconstructions are a poor substitute for actual measurements, but we can only use the best tools available.
No just stating science is about evidence and data, not votes or opinions...
Except when it's not, right? You don't only present evidence, you present carefully selected evidence and then present your opinion of the evidence. Case in point: you keep accusing other people of dishonesty, however, your accusations are not evidence of anything other than your mental condition. So why do you keep writing them?
Maybe because you can't be bothered to read the journal article I already linked. It's even written by Michael Mann, a very vehement AGW activist in addition to being a scientist so you should like him. I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thing and note you can skip to Figure 3. As I pointed out, Mann chose note to plot the SH because the data wasn't as good. But even he acknowledges the best reconstruction(EIV) shows peaks around 1000AD, as did Ljungqvist's work...
Again, your comment lacks relevance. The figure you cited clearly shows recent temperatures exceeding the peaks around 1000 AD. The summary even states:
Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context.
Once again, it seems that you choose to ignore the entirety of the evidence so that you can focus on a tiny bit that you think supports your position, and again, even that tiny bit doesn't seem to support your views at all.
Oh how I wish people would stop quoting skepticalscience as if a blog is a scientific resource.
It's kind of sad that you can make so many errors in one sentence. I referenced Skeptical Science because they have articles explaining in more detail exactly what I was explaining. I quoted one of the authors of the paper used by the parent to that post explicitly contradicting the view presented based on that's author's paper. How I wish you wouldn't ignore things that were inconvenient to you.
Skeptical science says exactly would you did, and most of what they say is sourced against another blog(RealClimate.org) which was at least started by a pair of actual scientists, but is still itself not subject to peer review either and really does not belong in your exhibit of evidences.
Isn't this just an ad hominem attack?
This is is what is WRONG with the whole 'debate'.
I would agree that your behaviour is exactly what is "WRONG" with this whole debate.
it very clearly shows temperatures as measured by proxy records matched or exceeded todays temperatures on multiple occasions in the last 2k years.
That would have been interesting if you had backed it up with actual evidence to support the claim. However, all I see is hand-waving and quote-mining. Looking at the graphs in the actual article shows one proxy in the Southern Hemisphere that appears to rival current temperatures at exactly one point.
It's interesting, but I don't see the relevance here. It does not address the actual issue which is that no actual reconstructions show warming to actually have been higher in the past, so the dismissal of that claim as bogus is reasonable and expected, and the claim that the "current pause" indicates an end to global warming involves ignoring the oceans and wishful thinking.
Everything else you wrote is just pompous puffery. As you indicated above, we could do with less of that.
That applies to both sides.
Potentially, but not as much as you seem to think
When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation."
The problem is those responses are actually reasonably true. In a noisy data set like yearly temperatures, we expect there to be periods of slow temperature growth and periods of fast temperature growth due to short term variability so "that's not climate, that's weather" is true, 30 year averages are generally used to minimize year-to-year variability that can drown out the long term trend. We have had a confluence of natural factors working together to slow the surface air temperature growth over that period. Perhaps more importantly it's important to look at more than just the air temperature since the atmosphere only contains a small fraction of the heat content the earth can store.
Or when they point out evidence that it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today, it will be derisively dismissed.
That's a northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction, so it only covers half the world, and one of the authors of that paper, F. C. Ljungqvist, doesn't agree with your analysis:
Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”
But then there are those on the same side who will mention a 20-100 year period because it suits their argument.
Potentially, but those are periods that are long enough to cancel out year-to-year variability, though, I can't actually remember seeing anyone use a period that was longer than 30 years. Maybe it's not that the period suits the argument but that when you look at periods longer than 20 years, the evidence strongly supports one side in this debate? If that's the case, then the people who look at and accept the evidence have little choice but to end up on the same side of this debate?
Very few of the really rich people became rich from wages, so a maximum wage would have the effect of discouraging upper management from trying hard to make good and honest decisions. A maximum wage thus would increase criminality and make large corporations likelier to make serious mistakes. Consider a world where all cars are Ford Pintos and Chevy Corvairs.
Not really. Tying money to tasks that involve thinking generally impedes that subjects ability to think. There's kind of a salary bell curve, where on the low end you're not paying enough and you get poor candidates who don't make good decisions (after all, they did accept the job you were offering with below average compensation) in the middle you tend to get efficient managers who make relatively good decisions, and at the top end you get people who are making so much money that they end up spending most of their efforts on preserving the job that pays them so much money, and less time doing the job they're supposed to be doing.
And North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so it must be a democratic republic, right?
We can predict everything, except the future.