OT: Well this is slightly eerie

You're right about that. But note that the "vaccines cause autism" meme originated in the peer-reviewed, faked science.

And, independently, people still rightly disdain prediction based on extrapolations from insufficient understandings, iterated a billion times over in a computer.

Cheers, James Arthur

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If it's complaining about regulations , I challenge you to research what happens when there is no regulation. So me think capitalism will take care of it all. Although pure capitalism is g reat for creating wealth, it also means it's everyone for themselves. Poll ution is not even a second thought and monopolies like electric and gas uti lities can charge whatever they want.

Cite the source for that insane 12% GDP. The estimated cleanup for the mess in Texas is going to be a hefty % of the GDP too.

not if, it's when"

tried to tell me adding an Ethernet amplifier between my modem and router would boost speeds. I suggested maybe he means the cable side? No, he ins isted the Ethernet side. No such thing exists (that's what network switche s are for), and it's rated for full speed up to 100m, maybe a little more a s-is.

m is demonstrably false. But he was sure he was right.

experts.

n-experts are idiots. Forget all this "well they could be wrong" or "I've looked at the data" or "widely held theories have been wrong in the past".

e experts are less correct than the non-experts.

Recent examples: o super-radical mastectomies for breast cancer; o Alar scare (apples); o silicone breast implants; o progressive math and reading theories; o ulcers being caused by stress & spicy foods; o certain dental antibiotic prophylaxis that, analyzed, made infections *worse*... o Keynesian economics (just watch Houston bloom from the heaven-sent stimulus called "Harvey"!)

Cheers, James Arthur

$1.75 trillion a year in 2008, according to the Small Business Administration.

It's grown substantially since then, esp. with Obamacare, ObamaEPA, and ObamaDoddFrank, for starters.

Current discussion:

Cheers, James Arthur

's not if, it's when"

er tried to tell me adding an Ethernet amplifier between my modem and route r would boost speeds. I suggested maybe he means the cable side? No, he i nsisted the Ethernet side. No such thing exists (that's what network switc hes are for), and it's rated for full speed up to 100m, maybe a little more as-is.

aim is demonstrably false. But he was sure he was right.

e experts.

non-experts are idiots. Forget all this "well they could be wrong" or "I'v e looked at the data" or "widely held theories have been wrong in the past" .

the experts are less correct than the non-experts.

That's how technology and knowledge progresses. Things are tried, mistakes are made and we figure things out.

But human-induced climate change has been researched since at least the lat e 1800s, and rather than moving away from this idea, it is being increasing ly embraced. The only people who are actually scientists that are fighting against it are largely funded by companies who stand to lose something.

It really is illogical to continue denying humans are creating a big proble m.

That's silly, claiming that a site is right-wing because so-called conservatives prefer it. I'm so-called-conservative, and I like Drudge because it has headlines and many links in all directions. It links to far-right and far-left and stuff in-between. Interestingly, the big lefty sites are often paywalled, so I can't see most of them. Maybe that's why so many people visit conservative web sites.

Some people hate Drudge because it was the first big aggregator to link to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, which the lefty sites never would have touched.

Hell no. In those "sciences" nobody has it figured out. Those "sciences" are not predictive and are not subject to experimental falsification. So they are subject to groupthink and oscillatory fads. Physics advances incrementally; it doesn't oscillate.

"If you're an economist, how come you ain't rich?"

Or, based on my personal experience, if you're a psychriatrist, how come you ain't happy?

Criticism? Well, we can't allow any of that in Science.

Although the warmer atmosphere and sea surface temperature means it can carry more water onto the land than would otherwise be the case. Atmospheric dew point goes up roughly 7% per degree Celsius increase.

I wonder how many more US cities will have to be trashed like this before Trump and his sycophants will finally admit that climate change is real and the worlds scientists are correct.

You either pay the price for long term remediation of climate change or you ignore scientists advice and take the consequences.

Its hard lines on people who live in Houston though.

OTOH It will make US fuel scarce and more expensive. It might just be the wake up call that is needed to make US citizens think about the issues of climate change instead of believing the big tobacco style disinformation campaign by the deniers for hire on the rabid right.

Houston has previous for building houses on land prone to flooding.

All Confederate grave sites. Then all Revolutionary, then all white's...

Seems like you are right about this. It was reported on in detail today in the BBC Radio 4 numbers program "More or Less". It seems that the intention of providing affordable flood insurance for flood prone homes has resulted in a motivation to build new homes on dodgy flood plains.

They quoted one home in Houston that had been flooded every year pretty much since being built and had accrued $1M rebuild refit costs on a property with an original book value they said of $150k.

In theory there was supposed to be a cutoff on keep insuring homes that were identified as too prone to flooding but it has proved politically unacceptable to enforce it. Flood insurance is a problem in the UK too.

Yes. Science progresses one denier at a time. Townes' book is a great example. Einstein brlliantly predicted stimulated emission, then dumbly declared it impossible to use for gain. Any good neon shop could have made lasers in 1930 (I know amateurs who have done it) but since it was impossible, nobody tried.

What's illogical is to keep believing the models.

The standard response is "But we have much better models now."

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wro te:

te:

te:

ing

the

me

at

ats

mess in Texas is going to be a hefty % of the GDP too.

tion.

The small business people are nutty shit-for-brains thieves and riffraff. T hey complain about big business corporate America but in almost every case they're totally reliant on a service or product from big industry to surviv e. All this subsidization of small business by the feds needs to cease and desist. And that will put a stop to their complaining about regulations too .

Houston is New Orleans without the charm. And a lot closer to the Gulf.

You asked why people think it's right-wing, and I suggested why they might. I don't know myself because I've never checked it out.

t's not if, it's when"

ler tried to tell me adding an Ethernet amplifier between my modem and rout er would boost speeds. I suggested maybe he means the cable side? No, he insisted the Ethernet side. No such thing exists (that's what network swit ches are for), and it's rated for full speed up to 100m, maybe a little mor e as-is.

laim is demonstrably false. But he was sure he was right.

te experts.

non-experts are idiots. Forget all this "well they could be wrong" or "I' ve looked at the data" or "widely held theories have been wrong in the past ".

the experts are less correct than the non-experts.

ave fortune tellers and the like. Economists and sociologists have a hard job. These are fundamentally complex things to study, like climate. But s ince you have it all figured out, maybe you need to tell them it's time to go home. You've figured it all out.

And what, if you're a meteorologist, why can't you make it rain? I fail to see your reasoning.

sentiment and criticism.

My point wasn't that criticism is bad, my point is that these scientists ar en't getting rich or famous. They're getting a paycheck like every other e mployed person, and they're likely paid well, but not getting rich. So whe re's the incentive to make stuff up? If anything, the science community wa nts to know the real answer. Most don't care if they're correct, they just want to know what is correct.

Of course! The logical thing to do is go to the extreme!

Doesn't Galveston sit between Houston and the Gulf? If you look at the storm track history, Harvey bounced off the coast east of Corpus Christi and was something like 50 miles out to sea when its periphery lined up with Houston.

Scientists are subject to pressure to conform, like everyone else. Their careers and livelihood depend on it.

Jeroen Belleman