A new way to deal with your rejected papers.
A new way to deal with your rejected papers.
As an economist I...
Admitting the problem is the first step.
Scientists are pretty regular people.
True. But priests are not.
1) Government funds your study and provides your grant
2) Government wants a particular result from your study
3) Government does not renew your grant when the study does not prove what they set out to prove
1) Private industry funds your study and provides your grant
2) Private industry wants a particular result from your study
3) Private industry does not renew your grant when the study does not prove what they set out to prove
4) Private industry tries to censor any study that has results that embarrass private industry
Face it Twitter is the kindergarten play ground of public forums. They basically want to control it by gagging the children and chaining them to a stake in the ground so they can't pester each other.
If you've ever had a kindergarten age kid, you will recognize the appeal of this idea.
You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.
Pure libel. I never wrote either of those things. In fact, I straightened you out on BOTH of those issues, right here on Slashdot, just a short time ago. So there is absolutely no excuse for your libel. You knew, or should have known, those statements were false when you made them just now.
For the sake of others, not you, I will repeat what I told you earlier: I have no idea where Barack Obama was born. The document on the White House website IS an altered graphic, which anyone with good graphics skills can download and check for themselves. They hardly need to take my word for it. However, as I also clearly told you before, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.
Second, I did not claim 9/11 "was an inside job". That's a blatant lie. My only claim was that we were not told the whole truth about it. and there are more than 2400 professional architects and engineers who agree with me.
Neither I or they did claim or now claim it was "an inside job". That's a deliberate lie. I.e., libel.
Now I have some questions for YOU. Please do be a good boy and try to answer them honestly:
(A) Why did you respond to a perfectly civil comment with insults and deliberate lies?
(B) Why do you quote "Khayman80" so much? No "conspiracy theory" here, just an honest question. I am not claiming you are the same people, but they way you write and the way you behave are remarkably similar, and you even quote each other rather surprisingly consistently and often.
"These days, manuals get crappy fuel economy; autos beat them every time"
Find me a non-hybrid that beats my 1987 manual transmission Tercel's 40+ MPG.
I have yet to see one at any dealership.
" the fuel economy is noticeably better than manuals"
My 87 Tercel hatchback got 40 MPG easily. I have yet to see any automatic transmission car with such a rating on it that isn't some sort of hybrid.
Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.
In cosmology and astrophysics getting a result that is within a few orders of magnitude is considered "accurate". In archeology a radioactive dating result with 10% is considered a "good result". Science isn't all about measuring the width of a proton, other than particle physics, there are actually very few scientific fields that "demand" eight decimal places of accuracy.
The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money. If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting. There are lists of rebuttals to these fake critiques on the web, skepticalscience is one of the better ones, I'm sure you will find a few of your favorite talking points torn to shreds on that page..
Yeah, let's just ignore that little crash in '99 and 2000
What crash would that be? Unemployment was under 5% in 1999 and kept falling until 2001 (graph). Yes, it was bad if you were in the tech sector. More of a market correction than a crash. <Cue Crocodile Dundee> Now, 2008, THAT was a crash!
So, who benefited from that "boom"? The very same people that are benefiting from this one, and it ain't us.
Indeed, which is why I'm voting Sanders.
Did you enjoy the meeting?
Yes. The meeting was held in Roosh V's mom's basement. She made rice krispy squares.
No, we're all too focused on "Who's fault is it?" and nobody has properly considered "What do we do about it?"
We know exactly what to do about it: move to less convenient fuels (excuse me, "renewables") , adopt less comfortable living conditions (aka "reduce energy consumption"), reduce the amount of disposable consumer goods in our lives, etc. And those of us in the developed world have to cut enough from our carbon budgets to make allowances for the populations of the developing nations who want to better their standards of living, a move that is guaranteed to build resentment on both sides of the equation.
What you're missing here (either honestly or deliberately) is that the problem is ongoing, and that because it's caused by economic activity, the people who are profiting from it want to continue to profit from it, and they are actively working to derail efforts to correct or even acknowledge the problem.
And those of us in the developed world are not too excited about fixing it. The benefit we get from fossil fueled energy is great and immediate; the impact we feel from CO2 emissions is so low we have to be 40 years old before we have enough experience to notice the impact on our own lives. Rising water levels on a few tropical islands is a long way from stepping on a gas pedal in North Dakota.
So yeah, we need to do both: stop the people who are encouraging the growth of the problem, and we have to accept some sacrifices as a result. Neither is fun, so
Here's an amusing thought: Trump has threatened to run as a third party candidate if the Republicans are mean to him, Bloomberg said if Trump, Sanders, or Cruz were nominated he could jump in. So it could be a four way race; Trump, Sanders, Bloomberg, and Cruz. I don't think that's ever happened before.
When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"