Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

No Denying Climate Change Deniers

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jun 26, 2014 5:54 PM
I'll say "because the models are wrong" but I'm sure someone will "correct" me by saying "it's much more complicated than that, you're a flat earther troglodyte throwback with bad personal hygiene and an IQ of 3 on a good day," etc, etc.
In response to:

No Denying Climate Change Deniers

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jun 26, 2014 5:26 PM
You're forgetting the "you're a flat earther if you don't believe in AGCC" denigration of anyone who questions the "scientific consensus."
In response to:

No Denying Climate Change Deniers

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jun 26, 2014 5:23 PM
To me, #5 on your list is the "smoking gun" for ignoring the climate change crowd. We already have proven solutions to this supposed problem, and these solutions are being ignored.
In response to:

No Denying Climate Change Deniers

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jun 26, 2014 4:58 PM
I suppose I shoul finish my "Since the US government is spending..." thought with: obvious solutions to CO2 production are getting the least funding (mainstream and alternative fusion devices, fission power production) whereas "renewables" are getting the most funding. Seems to me the least "bang for the buck" is getting the funding. So, if politicians were actually worried about possible efects of climate change to themselves and their families, we would see a much different funding picture. Hence the conclusion that we have little, if any, effect on global temperatures.
In response to:

No Denying Climate Change Deniers

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jun 26, 2014 4:53 PM
I'll hazard a guess that ScienceAvenger wasn't even alive in the '60's or '70's, probably born in the mid '80's, so has no memory of these things. Since the US government is spending something to the tune of $11 billion per year on climate changes science (~23% of it on pure research, the rest presumably on "renewable energy"), while spending maybe 5% of that on fusion research and development, roughly the same on fission (check out Figure 3 here): http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2009/08/federal-investment-in-energy-rd-2008.pdf Besides which, science has no need of an avenger, it is either proved, disproved or evolving. String theory's a good example.
king10 - for some things like temperature, speed, engine power rating and distance, yes - IF that is the system one is raised with. Hence my caveat. However, try to figure out the kinetic energy of a vehicle using English instead of metric - the equation is simple, E = (1/2)*Mass*Velocity^2 In metric, a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) vehicle traveling 10 meters/second (22.4 mph) has a kinetic energy of 100,000 Joules, which my calculator tells me is 94.8 BTU. To me, the metric answer makes more sense than the BTU answer.
I think it was more an assumption of which units were being used. One group used metric, another used English. I'd bet that both groups converted to metric to perform their calculations though - obscure English units for mass (Slug) and BTU for energy (vs. Joule) don't make much sense either. However, for me MPH and degrees F make a lot more sense than kph and degrees C.
As an engineer, I can definitely say that calculations using the metric system are much simpler than in English units. So, I'll convert from English to metric, perform the calculation, then convert back to make sense of the result. Ultimately, the system you've used ost of your life is the one that makes sense - presumably like learning a language. I'm not interested in sports, but at least in soccer there's movement, whereas with golf, not so much. But golf does let you drink more...
In response to:

Omission Control

OneForFreedom Wrote: Jun 25, 2014 12:10 PM
Having a wife and a couple of kids (ages 9 and 14) I have more interesting things to do than devote time to fact checking news stories. You're both right, of course. I'm thinking though that it would really be worth refuting WJF's "20 points about Ron Paul" - at least providing a context for his decisions, but, being a geek who's a long way from retirement, I just have better things to do. Besides which, he'll just find 20 more things to refute/provide context for. I really don't understand why WJF and some others are so upset about the Libertarian point of view. Seems to me they at least shouldn't be using broad stereotypes for us. Remember Mike Adams' column "Alison Wonderland?" Maybe the Libertarian Dr. Walter Williams will write a column "WJF is he thinking?"
I wish WJF would ask us what our actual priorities are - he focuses on the "we want all drugs legalized" aspect, but as far as I can tell, assumes we rate that up there with the same priority as "we want government at the federal level minimized, we want a budget surplus so the debt can start decreasing, we want the military to remain strong - AT HOME" etc. Give me a politician who believes illegal drugs shoul remain illegal, but wants to shrink the fed, and I'll vote for him/her over one who believes drugs should all be legal, but the government should remain where it is or grow.
QR - you want RP to include Keynesian economics? Perhaps he should include Keynesian economics as a case study in "failure", comparing it to Austrian economics. If you like Keynesian economics, you can apply for a bunch of credit cards - when one maxes out, transfer the balance to another, and when it runs out, repeat. Eventually, though, your credit application will be denied, as your debt accumulates to such a point that you cannot possibly pay it back. The problem with easy credit is that it's too easy to get into trouble with it. I've been there, and getting out of it isn't fun. No, I never declared bankruptcy, just refinanced the house to lock in a low interest rate to pay for all the garbage I bought in the past.
Previous 21 - 30 Next