What you see here is a common argumentative tactic by climate change deniers: "Scientists have been hysterical about global cooling in the past and that has not happened. Therefore claims about climate change in general are not to be believed."
I refer you to the wikipedia article on global cooling for reference. Especially take into consideration the line chart at the very top.
> "Scientists have been hysterical about global cooling in the past and that has not happened. Therefore claims about climate change in general are not to be believed."
a. Not a climate denier
b. I never said anything like you are referring to. I never inferred that since its cooling, climate change shouldn't be believed.
c. What I AM saying is the earth's temperature has swung in both directions in a fairly cyclical manner for thousands of years before heavy industry. The earth's temperature warmed when there weren't ANY humans on the planet.
Even going back some 1.2 milion years, scientists still are not sure what caused the change:
"The Mid Pleistocene Transition is a most important and enigmatic time interval in the more recent climate history of our planet," says Fischer. Earth's climate naturally varies between times of warming and periods of extreme cooling (ice ages) over thousands of years. Before the transition, the period of variation was about 41 thousand years while afterwards it became 100 thousand years. "The reason for this change is not known."
We as a country can do a lot, but what about other developing countries? What are they doing to help reduce pollution and greehouse gases? If we're doing all we can, and other countries aren't following suit, then our gains become minimal and the march towards this catastrophe will continue, unabated.
It's pretty easy to find scientific papers that make the claim that solar variation is likely to make a small difference compared to human cause climate change.
> Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. - [Ineson, S.et al. Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum - https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535]
> We as a country can do a lot, but what about other developing countries?
It's a difficuly question, lead by example? Change anyway, because the more time we have to develop countermeasures the smaller the magnitude of the problem will peak at? I don't know, but waiting for all countries to fall into line isn't going to work.
What good_gnu did was point out the logical fallacy commonly used by climate change deniers: "something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid" (a full description http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20...).
The number of warming and cooling studies over time would suggest to me (and this is my interpretation) that climate was a (relatively) new field back in 1970ish, people were still working out what was going on, how to study it, and what the data meant, and over time as these things have become clearer the trend towards warming has become the most arrived at interpretation.
Though I'm sure there have been exaggerated claims in the past, nothing that good_gnu said leads to "what you are saying is that in hindsight it's easier to see which side was making exaggerated claims?" being an accurate summary.
It's proof that the process of research in climate science has large flaws, much like the other social sciences. Given they still do things the same way, why would you expect this time it's different?
I don't understand why this is a problem specifically with bitcoin. Is this not a problem with any other currency? I mean I appreciate the sentiment but how does it even matter in which currency the rich are rich and the poor are poor?
The purpose of all the jargon that Scrum introduces is to avoid naming collisions with prior terminology.
You probably have a good idea of what a product manager should be doing but someone else in a different company might have a different opinion. Introducing a new term eliminates this source of confusion.
Admittedly, all the jargon you encounter when learning about Scrum can make you feel like you're joining a cult. However, there is a reason behind introducing it.
My understanding is that European royalty generally thought of their positions as being granted by divine providence. I guess it's slightly different because they didn't attain their position (they were born into it) but I think there's little question they generally considered themselves inherently morally superior to the poor.
Really, it seems like the mechanism may have changed; "I am successful because God has chosen me in my inherent superiority to be successful" vs "I am successful because of the inherent superiority of the moral code I follow", but they're really just different applications of the just-world fallacy. Which, in turn, is a natural product of the way our brains are wired.
note that the article isn't really talking about aristocrats, whatever their modern equivalent would be, but today's upper middle class. The kind of people who work for a living, highly paid for sure, but who aren't rentiers or factory owners.
As far as successful burghers or artisans in the middle ages, then yes, I think they did ascribe their financial success as resulting from God's blessing their superior morality.
Your cousins are misrepresenting the situation in Europe at least with respect to Germany.
People in Germany do not generally make binding decisions on their specific career path until they are sixteen and after that career switches do happen.
In your particular case you might have been recommended for a vocational path at age 10 or so and then you could have disregarded that recommendation (possible at least in Germany's most populous State).
If you had followed that path, you would have still been able to switch after any semester if your grades were considered sufficient.
Or you would have completed that path and started an apprenticeship as an electrician. This would also allow you to enroll at any state university in a related major (e.g. electrical engineering).
There are also courses that you can take to obtain the general university entrance qualification necessary for enrolling in any field of your choice.
The point I am making is that there is much more flexibility in Germany than you currently imagine. There are many who still criticize the German system otherwise (me included), because straying from the recommendation that your elementary school teacher gives you does come with some friction. Also, there is some empirical evidence that the recommendations can depend on the social class of the child (i.e. kids with rich parents are put on the academic path) in practice. However nobody is "locked in" to any career progression.
Generally, the rationale of term limits seems to be to prevent a dictatorial or monarchistic system from emerging.
However, consider the rise of the National Socialists in Germany: In 1930, they first got a result > 3% in a federal election. By the end of 1933 all other political parties were banned. No practical term limit could have prevented this dictatorship, even though they never got more than 44% of the vote in a federal election, i.e. never enough to really change the constitution by democratic means. So we definitely know that term limits are not a completely reliable measure.
> Generally, the rationale of term limits seems to be to prevent a dictatorial or monarchistic system from emerging.
In Brazil, we didn't had reelections in the executive branch. 20 years ago the president bribed the Congress to change the Constitution so he could be reelected.
It has been a disaster!
The person in power would use all the government machine for his/her reelection. The election of a second term becomes almost a plebiscite of yes/no if the person must continue.
The renovation of the elected politicians has come almost to a halt. The emergence of new politicians were stifled. A real mess.
Yes, but if everyone speaks to you whenever they need to, you might be interrupted in your work very frequently which can be stressful. If only people could communicate all of these issues say once a day or so...
Yes. And at that point, you will suggest, like an adult, to speak when it fits both time. I wonder how people who don't use Scrum solve this problem!
Here's little experiment. 10mins after standup is over, ask some people what did they learn in standup. I mean specifics. Noone will know or care or remember. Sure, people get broad picture, which they could just as well by looking onto jira or whatever.
Breaking News: Twitter is free to not boost his tweets for any reason of their choice or no reason at all in exactly the same way that Fox news is free to only cover things from a conservative point of view.
Curiously, you only see Scott Adams complaining about one of these things.
>The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
Basically things that Ayn Rand hates are bad--except when Ayn Rand does them and then it's because the things are unreasonable, not Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand didn't use force to take anyone's money. That's what she hated. When those who took her money offered her a small portion back, her philosophy didn't require her to refuse it.
Like if she was in a forced labour concentration camp, her philosophy wouldn't require her to refuse to eat the food she was offered.
Rand was extremely influential to me, but you're absolutely right on this. I stopped calling myself an Objectivist long ago because I kept getting into arguments with others who took the label over things that Rand did that are blatantly against her first principles, but that Rand held a contradictory position.
In particular, Rand supported US foreign aid to Israel in her later years despite strongly denouncing the concept of foreign aid in its entirety prior.
In (1) you assume that people buy green energy mainly or to a large extent to reduce the emissions they personally suffer from. Have you considered that a big reason for many people to buy green energy might just be to provide incentives for green energy production in order to combat emissions globally without regard for whether they personally benefit from it? If everyone consumes energy "covered" by certificates, this increases viability of producing green energy.
In (2) you say that the scheme is likely to be gamed. Can you elaborate on how that would look like? Does this "Occam's razor" necessarily mean that only simple laws are effective?
Also in (2) you claim that there is not enough real green energy available to satisfy the demand. This is obviously true but this means that the demand creates an incentive for companies to produce green energy wherever possible.
Overall what this system really provides is an option for consumers to optionally subsidize green energy producing companies and so far I have not really heard of any concrete case in which this system has been gamed. Do you know any?
I don't feel like discussing this any further after the usual stupid down-voting and rationalizations.
Go and continue to believe that the world is just, no gaming of the system occurs, as clueless and highly paid A12-A16 civil servants [1] have told you in school.
[1] German teachers are paid well in return for their indoctrination.
So now after 3 layers of us trying to coax you into giving us a little bit more concrete detail on your argument, you link an article in German which a lot of people here cannot read?
Anyway, the article's argument is that the certificates for renewable energy are created in e.g. Norway and Switzerland where it is easy to produce cheap hydropower which cannot be transported to Germany. Meanwhile the Norwegian and Swiss do not buy energy with certificates because they "know" that their energy is clean.
This is indeed true and a valid argument. However Norway and Switzerland produce only a finite amount of these certificates. If demand for certified green energy does not exceed this supply then this is simply a sign that not enough people are willing to pay extra for certified green energy which is regrettable but not a fault of this system.
I refer you to the wikipedia article on global cooling for reference. Especially take into consideration the line chart at the very top.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
With regards to the Paul Ehrlich quote I would add that he is not actually talking about climate change at all but overpopulation.