At least I do undertand that there's nothing magical about the word "conclusion". If every document conformed to some kind of rigid rhetorical formula you might be saying something sensible, but as it is you are parroting a context-dependent phrase that you don't actually understand.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Every American right-winger thinks that the US media is biased in favour of the left.
Every European notes that even the most "left-wing" US newspapers aren't any more left wing than the UK's Daily Telegraph, which looks right-wing to everybody over here.
Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart, and why.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
That's exactly the mistake they describe making, in detail.
Which there's almost zero chance they've done. Your expert describes shooting in the dark, hoping to hit something.
Culling horrendously bad models from a vast herd of models in no way guarantees the correctness of those that remain.
To make the model work it has to reasonably approximate the behavior of the actual processes, for example CLOUDS. CLOUDS are more 10x influential than CO2. A small error in CLOUD behavior completely swamps, buries, and fossilizes AGW CO2. Monte Carlo + curve-fits offer no guarantee of correctness.
Jiggling the coefficients doesn't make it right, doesn't make it predictive. But, that's what they do.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
g
ng
The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.
Socialism tottered on a bit longer--reaching an inflection point around the turn of the 21st century--before imploding in the early
2010's.-- Cheers, James Arthur
t
In fact it isn't. You just don't understand enough of what they are doing to appreciate the difference between trying to over-optimise one model and checking out a variety of appreciably different models - incorporating a variety of of different simplifications - in order to find a sample which capture useful information without being excessively computationally demanding
addresses exactly this point, but you don't have the kind of insight that lets you understand this.
That not the way he puts it, and it isn't the way anybody with any understanding of what was going on would put it either.
So what?
From what point of view? A reasonable simplication is to say the the sky has a 50% cloud content - air moving upwards or away from the equator gets cooler and any water-vapour present condenses out as water droplets or ice crystals, producing clouds while air moving downwards or towards the equator is getting warmer and won't contain cloud. This implies that cloud cover is pretty much constant and independent of of CO2 levels. Water vapour is also much more important than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but because water vapour levels in the atmopshere equilibate with the oceans with a time constant of a few weeks, vapour vapour lelves can be treated as a dependent variable.
Denialist idiots have frothed at the mouth about climatologists "ignoring" water vapour, in just the same way as you are complaining mouth about the "cloud problem" which you don't actually understand but imagine to be useful as a stick to beat climatologists.
Unfortunately for this proposition, clouds are disciplined by the laws of physics and perform as the CO2 levels require them to. Lindzen was the last serious climatologist to claim that changes in cloud cover could compensate for rising CO2 levels, and his theory was falsified by experimental data in very short order. He seems to have given up on serious climatology since then.
Do try to get it into your head that they aren't "jiggling the coefficients" in a single over-simplified model, but optimising a whole range of different models, incorporating a wide range of different simplifications. Try re-reading the Princeton paper with a few of your juvenile preconceptions turned off.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ong
wing
Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy
European socialism is doing fine. A bunch of countries which spent appreciable periods under right-wing control - by Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain , Mussolini in Italy and the colonels in Greece - are now doing badly, precisely because their populations haven't had the time to internalise the socialist world view, and are correspondly less willing to pay their taxes and think about the common good.
You see this as a constraint on the invisible hand of the free market, where political advantage (as in tax loopholes) is one more commodity to be bought and sold.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
I am still sorry for you. And making statements saying that I do not understand seems to be the best you can do.
Dan
Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism and communism and want someone to explain the difference?
Dan
No. And I think you've just confirmed what I thought.
James Arthur's entry in the competition was also graded D.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
You can take a horse's ass to water, but you can't make it think.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
It's not that hard, Dan. A communist is a socialist who lives in a commune. ;-)
Cheers! Rich
Wrong. A communist believes in "the leading role of the party" which is to say, communist societies were oligarchies. Socialists believe in democracy (not to mention motherhood and apple pie). The split dates back to about 1880.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
What I am really saying is that Bill Sloman asks pointless questions. I know the answer, Bill knows the answer. Asking me is pointless. He just wants me to waste my time doing a bunch of typing.
Dan
You mean you thought I was too lazy to jump to reply to a pointless question?
Dan
is
ions
you
t1.pdf
t2.pdf
.you
Yes. this is key
Oh yes. If you want to put figures to those other things and add em all up, then we're getting somewhere. We can look at what impact it would have on society.
Don't forget the worldwide distribution system too.
NT
As far as I know that price is before any government subsidies. If you go through their checkout from Canada (no photovoltaic subsidies) the price stays the same.
cheers, Jamie
No. Either too much of a coward to risk getting it wrong, or - more likely - too ignorant to be able to confidently pick out a salient difference.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Not that pointless - look at the "answer" that James Arthur came up with, which ignores history and reality at once.
Actually, you know an answer, I know an answer and James Arthur though he knew an answer - which happens to be obviously wrong.
Not really. I was genuinely interested to learn whether you'd managed to read enough outside the US media box=A0to be able to produce an answer with some kind of objective validity. James Arthur utterly failed, basically producing Tea Party propaganda of the more unthinking sort.
It wouldn't have taken a lot of typing. You've probably output more characters failing to answer the question than it would have taken to produce an answer. "Communist state are oligarchies while socialists states are democracies - the proto-communists split from the socialist mainstream around 1880 for this very reason" doesn't take much typing.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
It was a joke Bill.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those richies! Pass this bill! Pass this bill! (Ooops, wandered there, didn't we?)
Both believe in taking what you've made and spreading it to those who haven't, and act surprised when this doesn't encourage you to work harder, hire, or expand the economy.
But, like Gore, Obama, Rangel, Geithner, Daschle, Buffett [...], they don't want it applied to themselves. They don't want to pay a cent more, and half the time don't want to pay their share.
That sure explains Germany, star of Europe.
Translation: "Common good" = "we own you and your work" = "gimme."
No, that's a separate misconception.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
w wrong
ght wing
sra
Really? Pretty much everything you post reflect a deeply distorted view of the world, so it's hard to identify which absurd proposition should not be taken seriously.
The distinguishing feature of communism is the leading role of the communist party, who get to control all the property, and have a depressingly human tendency to hog the benefits that devolve from the various sorts of property. It sets up an oligarchy.
Socialists do have an enthusiasm for providing community-wide social services, paid for by taxes in the same way that every society pays for collective services like roads, bridges and defence. Taxes do involve taking some of what you've made and spending it on services for everybody. There are upper limits to the amount that any governemnt can collect in tax - people move away if it costs too much to do business in a high tax area - but modern European socialist governments don't tax at that level, or anywhere near close to it, and don't seem to be having any trouble with under-productive workers of entrepreneurs.
I know why you like to think that, but it is a totally bizarre claim.
This little collection of right wing delusions is also funny, in a depressing kind of way.
The Germans more or less invented socialism. Hilter had to call himself a "national socialist" to get his foot in the door, and there were plenty of people around who still knew what socialism was about when his fifteen-year Reich was dismantled.
You find it convenient to think so. Amongst other things, this kind of half-witted lampoon saves you from having to think about what is actually going on.
You do have an extensive stable of misconceptions. Which one should I have been referring to?
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.