iNow

I think you'll find that people can rationalize just about anything, and often do.

In fact... we actually made quite a bit of money back on some of those investments. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/329/story/69754.html When Congress passed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package last fall, critics said it'd be a money loser. But when 10 banks returned $68 billion of the money on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said the government had realized a small profit. Did it really? In addition to returning the $68 billion, the 10 banks paid the government $1.8 billion in dividends on the preferred shares of stock the government owned. That translates to an annualized rate of return of about 4.64 percent on the $68 billion. In all, the government has received $4.5 billion from all bailout recipients, who've received $200 billion, for an annualized rate of return since Nov. 12, 2008, when the money was lent out, of 3.94 percent. <...> The government stands to earn even more when it sells the stock warrants it holds in conjunction with its preferred shares in the 10 bank-holding companies that are paying their bailout. Treasury and the banks are negotiating a fair-market value for these warrants. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, thinks that the warrants issued against preferred shares of stock from all bailout recipients — not just the 10 authorized Tuesday to repay the government — are worth at least $5 billion. So for a snapshot in this point in time, the Wall Street bailout has been profitable.

First, let me state that I appreciate the clarity with which you described it, and how you did so in laymens terms. It's obvious this is not the first time you've shared this. However, what I am missing (and don't see in your post) is why this approach is supposed to better... What are it's pluses? We did a fine job of exploring the negatives on the previous page, but (frankly) all I see in the "pluses" category is "I prefer it this way." It's all based on fuzzy personal preferences, and not a lot of objective comparisons (AFAICT). So... What are the pluses? Why is this approach (which has so many obvious limitations and lack of practicality) somehow better? I think you are dangerously close to argument from incredulity here, and find your dismissal of the impact of the government interventions somewhat misinformed. For example, see the below... which is taken from three different independent sources... and shows how different things would have been had we "let them fail."

A nice article over at Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24 There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action. And this release of emails right before the Copenhagen conference is just another salvo—and a highly effective one—in that public relations battle, redolent with the scent of the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous." h/t swansont

I don't see a lot of positives to this approach. Does anyone else care to weigh in?

He got it off of Climate Audit, a site run by Steve McIntyre. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre Now... Just to be clear, it's rather obvious that we should all take Steve's word as gospel since he has worked as a director in mineral exploration for 30 years, with ties to CGX Energy, an oil and gas company, as a "strategic adviser." If we can't trust him to accurately reflect the science of global climate change, then who can we trust? [/End exasperated sarcasm]

Lots of techniques are available. They are used in conjunction with one another: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/proxydata.html

It's a double-edged sword, for sure... but the guaranteed right to free speech written into the first amendment of our constitution applies equally to good ideas and bad... intelligent comments and hateful ones.

If deficit spending is unconstitutional, then so too is our spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (since we've had to run a deficit to fund them). However, the answer is, no. There is no where in the constitution where it says the government cannot spend to fund projects while running a deficit.

No, it is not unconstitutional any more than social security, veterans benefits, or public roads and libraries are unconstitutional. It's just part of the idiotic narrative that keeps getting propagated through our nation by these hate-filled half-witted windbags with large microphones... which is then just further repeated by those with too little sense to realize how stupid it is. As you mentioned, Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution has the provision to provide for the general welfare of the public, and this was expounded upon by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers where he put forth that spending is an enumerated power which congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education. He also put forth that this spending by congress is entirely constitutional provided that the spending is "general in nature" and "does not favor any specific section of the country over any other." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html Additionally... as shown in the general welfare clause, the congress may "enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder." That really demolishes the "it's unconstitutional for the government to offer healthcare coverage" argument/assertion right there. Game over. Do not pass go. Do not collect two hundred dollars. Now... If you want to broaden your argument (it's a bit weaker than the above, but still supplemental) you can suggest that... as a general rule... the framers of our constitution had enough foresight to leave "wiggle room" in their language, and that they fully intended to let the document evolve. More specific to my point... The constitutionality of government healthcare coverage is further supported by reviewing sections such as the 9th amendment, whereby the following is put forth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In essence, they were saying, "Just because we didn't write it explicitly here does not mean we intended for it to be prohibited." This applies, as well, to the healthcare coverage argument. As I said... it's not as strong as the general welfare argument, but it certainly offers more ammunition when attacking those who are so misguided as to suggest that the government "does not have the power to offer universal healthcare." Quite the contrary, it's power is pretty explicit in this regard... As has been proven by government involvement with social security, medicare, veterans benefits, public roadways, libraries, and universities.

My preference is for something like I_A mentioned. We have whiteboards which allow us to connect remotely with audiences in other countries... They see on their computer screen from afar what is being written on the whiteboard locally. Also, these boards have the option of printing out what is written. This is really very nice to have a record of how the conversation evolved. The board itself rolls around and there is a scanner which captures an image of the board, and the system them reproduces/prints the image on to some paper below. That's certainly my preference when delivering a class or chairing a meeting.

I tend to agree with the perceptual descriptions put forth by Baby_A above. He's right... Humans are emotive creatures, and simple word order very often does have an impact on how we feel. Jill, word order absolutely matters. You can look to the "primacy effect" for further reading. However, with that said, I really don't care. Most of the crap that lands here is just that... crap. It's not an excuse to whine about it. It's a motivation to step up and do the required work to support your idea. The vast majority of the time, however, the people are either unwilling or unable to do that work, and for that reason alone I don't care how they feel when their crap is moved here. (ever notice how the people with true speculations tend to be connected with reality well enough not to complain and that it's not a slight against them, but just an accurate and objective move?) Swansont had an interesting post on something similar this morning: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4258 Welcome to the major leagues, rook.

Consistently warmer, more extreme storms, and our droughts are lasting longer.

Yep, precisely. That's pretty much all it is.

It's called the divergence problem. In essence, the trees lose their validity as a temperature proxy when the temperature increases as quickly as it has these last several decades. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/10/23/the-divergence-problem-and-the-failure-of-tree-rings-for-reconstructing-past-climate/ Divergence results either because of some unique environmental factor in recent decades, because trees reach an asymptotic maximum growth rate at some temperature, or because higher temperatures reduce tree growth. If trees show a nonlinear growth response, the result is to potentially truncate any historical temperatures higher than those in the calibration period, as well as to reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to actual. This produces the divergence effect. <...> The nonlinear response of trees to temperature explains the divergence problem,

It's not as catchy, but I'd prefer we call it the reality-based interpretation.

Arlen Specter did just recently in April of this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

Here's a copy of the most relevant email: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

Here's a decent overview, padren: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model The short answer to your question is, "There are a metric-assload of them."

I think it's rather off-topic, and that since we have several other threads already extant to discuss those topics that you should read/revive one of them to sate your curiosity. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46023 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38647 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35020

That's just it, though... The models (in general) are frakkin stellar. Hackers... as a general rule... are going to share everything indiscriminately. What we see here is little more than a cherry-picked morass which attempts to tell a very specific story. Further, the timing of the release of this information was (IMO) clearly strategic. They're merely trying to deflect everyone's attention from things like the below as we go to Copenhagen. I don't know what your standards are, but in my world, that is an amazingly accurate projection and set of modeling data, especially when you consider it pertains to something as painfully complex as climate. Pangloss... as your own post illuminates... apparently the distraction is working.

Failure to share data is also common because you're not going to share information which is not credible. When errors get made, of course you're not going to publish it. Why is this so hard for the conspiracy-theorists to grasp?

It seems to work with both violas AND guitars. Please note, though, that I did not test electric guitars... only an acoustic. I can't say for certain if both work.

Doh doh doh doh doh.... I sure stepped in it that time. Thanks for the correction....

Ah... You might try google, then. Answers to those questions are not hard to find. Happy searching.