Which gets to the real discussion that should be taking place.

The only useful evidence is in the modelling. If both sides want to make a useful case, they'll both build their own predictive computer models and open source them for comparison. They must also reveal all their funding sources.

Everything else seems to be a distraction.

``The climate alarmists try to compare themselves to the legitimate scientists in various fields while the climate skeptics are being presented as counterparts of those who don't believe in the HIV-AIDS relationship and many other crazy things. However, they don't have any evidence whatsoever that these ad hominem attacks and comparisons are the right ones. They don't seem to care. They believe that the readers of the Wall Street Journal are gullible enough that they will just accept whatever is written in the daily.''

And they wonder why their credibility is eroding faster every day...

The punchline for tldrs -

An astrologer could tell you: "I am the only expert in astrology. I have been doing horoscopes for 40 years and earned millions of dollars by doing so. The astronomers and biologists who wrote an article that disagreed with me aren't really certified experts in astrology. You should better listen to astrologers when they're talking about the impact of planets and about the horoscopes; everyone else is a layman."

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/One-Parenthesis-to-Rule-them-All

Quite nice!!

1 hour ago, cbae wrote

And please stop quoting whackjob AGW denialists. It just kills your argument.

And you wonder why you only lose ground with rational skeptics...

Anywho, I think it's time to lock the thread as it has devolved into the AGW camp's typical bile-spitting. As objective observers know all-too-well, they only get worse from here. Otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you

And let's not forget all the other countries in Asia and around the world who are modernizing. I specifically mentioned more than just China. The West simply no longer has the stomach for competition (or the back, for that matter).

But, I suppose I should grab my tin-foil nightcap before I go off to bed. Fortunately I got it dirt-cheap since it was made in you-know-where.

Night all!

So at the end of the day, America and Europe have only one choice - get back on board the train of economic progress and abolish this environmental crap, or lose out to their hungrier competitors. World-wide carbon counts will increase all the same.

I, for one, am betting on China.

The West can enjoy biding its new-found downtime in bread lines

1. Grant researchers a billion dollars a year to 'study it'.
2. Systematically deprive funding from the dissenting researchers.
3. Receive an equivalent amount of evidence that the world is flat as there exists for AGW.

The effective government monopoly on climate science is such a compromising force that it's hard to believe there are those who deny its relevance.

But who could possibly oppose government funding of science? Oh my head is spinning! This is not what they taught me in the government's school system! I must contort my perceptions to stop from having to rethink everything!!!

Phew. Just in time. I wonder what's on TV?

17 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

Oh, yeah, and anyone who uses the phrase 'weaponized against individual freedom' isn't arguing climate change, they're arguing politics.

It is not political to say that politics influence things. It is merely a sad fact of life, and must be accounted for. I think you're too quick to dismiss things that don't uphold your current beliefs. This is known as 'scientific bias'.

But anyways, here's just a tiny taste from a cursory search -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

Politics is relevant as it provides the undercurrent to the discussion. It is in fact the main source of climate change funding. It seems the AGW camp would rather hide these realities away. Why?

Why is open discussion about funding sources so anathema in this particular debate? Why are skeptical and objective researchers made to feel like they're talking to the Spanish Inquisition? Whoever disagrees is sure to face demonization (being compared to a holocaust 'denialist'), personal attacks (being accused of dishonest intentions), and even threats of personal harm. This is anything but scientific.

I don't care what side of the debate you fall on, the chicanery at play should be painfully apparent. Science is all about method, and the AGW methods are politically compromised. Until we all accept this elephant is in the living room, the debate will almost certainly not move forward.

1) The basis of good science is skepticism and dissent.

2) The AGW community systematically disallows for skepticism and dissent.

3) Pretty much only the AGW view is supported with government funding.

4) There is no freedom that AGW cannot be used to repress.

In light of this, I wonder how I can consider current AGW claims as 'scientific'. Skeptical views are either barely funded in comparison or otherwise repressed. What would Galileo think of this?

Since AGW could be (and is being) weaponized against individual freedom, I would not surprised that it's why governments are so anxious to promote it exclusively. Nor would I be surprised that it's why they are financially starving out skeptical and dissenting scientists. What would Jefferson think of this?

It doesn't seem like real science to me. When science gets politicized, it goes back to the Dark Ages. People with sufficient objectivity can't ignore when that happens. I would not be surprised if the AGW community's current tactics backfire against the people who remain objective. Would they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqyGMLSklw&feature=youtu.be

Judge us however you want, demonize us if you like, but we no longer consent to be part of this twisted, violent, stupid system... no matter how many crumbs it promises to hand out to us once it steals the rest of our bread.

And remember when Bush was president - the left was the most hateful group of people when it came to the rural majority! It was a nation-wide hate campaign. So your accusations are just a bunch of chicanery.

Unlike the demogogues who are running the world into the ground, I don't claim to be an angel. My compassion can only extend so far. Why would I help someone who has actively undermined my freedom, and would continue to do so? You have to someday start living in the real world. There is a difference between real compassion and a master / servant relationship. However, I realize that a statist is fundamentally unable to make this distinction.

Sadly, all normal avenues to freedom have been barricaded or are proving illusory. It is time to take up courage, accept the truth, and peacefully withdraw consent. This is the precise act of courage which is the only real backstop to tyranny. No, I don't deserve a sonnet, but I sure as **** don't deserve your ridicule either. Conversely, is there anything more cowardly than anonymously throwing stones at those who do stand up and speak out?

When I speak I put my reputation on the line. Because things are going to hell so fast, I now consider it imperative. And I couldn't give a damn about your petty insults; it just gives me another chance to clarify

*snip*

Is that a threat?

Will you follow the right-wing dream of taking your gun into congress?

[/quote]

It is the typical statist mindset to think aggressive violence is the only way to solve problems (voting merely being an indirect form). No, I don't plan on attacking Washington, if that's what you mean. Quite the contrary, I'm waiting for her to destroy herself. As Rome, the USSR, and all empires went, so will she. History has predicted every crisis this country has gone through, so a little knowledge goes a long way here.

However, life will be particularly difficult for those who refused to acknowledge this likelihood and would not prepare for life without a 'social safety net'. They will finally know what it is like to be powerless. And since they did it to themselves, I think I will be disinclined to help them out.

(Well, in truth, I'm soft-hearted and compassionate, so I probably will help anyone I see suffering, but damn, they better finally show a little respect for the people who were courageous enough to acknowledge reality.)

But anyway, feel free to misconstrue everything I say and consider me a right-wing terrorist or some self-serving bullocks.

Cowardice flees the light of truth. Courage often stands alone.

3 days ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

Well then, go use the democratic process to fix things.

I still think you worry unnecessarily.

Vive la Yurop!

That is such a cop-out. If voting could change anything for the better, it would be illegal. No people I've voted for (or would vote for) ever wins enough seats to provide any counter-balance to the avalanche of assholes. I am effectively disenfranchised. People like me have no real voice in a democracy. The only hope for us is secession (at least, on a personal level), but since that WOULD actually change things for the better, it IS illegal. Nowadays people who have more than, what, 14 days of food?, is considered a terrorist suspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8&feature=share&mid=53

Now, it is hard to explain to your typical democracy ideologue what it is like to be disenfranchised. Democracy ideologues, being the morons they are, are always in numerous company. They decide the elections typically, and can't see why anyone would object to a system that works so much in their perceived favor. They don't understand that democracy does not work for people other than themselves. Definitionally, the smarter people are always in the smaller minority. Smarter people refuse to live under perceptions of reality that have been warped into absurdity.

Non-idealogues know that freedom is more important than democracy, and that democracy tends to erode freedom more than protect it. But again, the people who know this are those who buck the prevailing mass culture and instead embrace the honest, if unpleasant, truth. They don't live in a simplistic fairy tale where the voting machine has a magical lever that will balance the world. These people, unfortunately, will always be in the minority. Which is why your pat answer is total bullshit. So maybe you can understand why such a statement is so fundamentally insulting.

The bottom line is that the problems caused by ideologies such as democracy cannot be fixed by piling more of it on. The answer is freedom, and that takes real individual action rather than what amounts to a political form of masturbation.

As to worry, I am not worried. I am pissed. I am outraged. And I am waiting and slowly preparing for the day I won't have to take this bullshit from Washington any more. And so is much of the rest of the country and likely the rest of the world. So pardon me for not sedating myself with fairy tales; I'm through.

1 day ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

Hahahahahhahah.

You worry too much.

How many knives need to be at your throat before you pull your head out of your *?

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

The founders created a minimal government as it was the ONLY way to restrain it from becoming a criminal enterprise. They wisely realized that making the government responsible for only a select few things was the ONLY way to keep it properly constrained. Sure, that means that the welfare and aggressive warfare functions of the government were to be non-existent, but that independence is the real price of freedom.

But over time, the country filled up with dumbfounded dipshits who couldn't absorb or remember that one principle lesson.

In closing, if America goes to hell, at least we will know why. It will have been the combination of political avarice and incorrigible stupidity.

@CreamFilling512: Cheers. It's really sad how the left and right would trade away lawful government for their ideological crusades. It's as if they've never heard of what happened to the people underneath criminal governments throughout the 20th century. Rather than learning good economics and humbling themselves to dynamics of voluntary human action, they want to create a society built on their prejudices and hatred... enforced by thugs, jailors, executioners, and (now thanks to Bush il Deuce) torturers.

It is set up to become a war of all groups against all others where at least one group has a target on its back. What was once a society will become a prison to the prevailing hysteria of the moment. We'll reinvent the same old totalitarianism under a new guise, all because too few are willing to humbly educate themselves on limited, decentralized, republican government and real economics (EG - not Keynesianism).

I believe in America's core tradition of equal protection for everyone under the law. I don't care if you really ARE the 99%, the 1% has the same God-given rights as everyone else; the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness via the just acquisition of private property.

It is time to say 'NO' to criminal government, your welfare checks and bloated warfare budgets be damned! Neither of those will save you when your own government's got a boot on your neck. And if you have your eyes open, you'll see said boot is getting closer everyday - http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12#ixzz1gYi1BuI7

Ultimately, the argument isn't about whether you should help people out with your neighbor's money. The argument is about freedom - that is, the freedom to help yourself provided that you allow others to do the same for themselves and each other. Under an unrestrained criminal government, everyone is doomed. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all provided gigantic welfare systems. In the end, their massive social safety nets only worked to ensnare and suffocate the people.

So don't give us that agitprop about people having the freedom to starve under laissez-faire. What people really need, and what criminal government utterly destroys, is the freedom to survive, and the ability to flourish. That's what made America prosperous, and can again. So let's stop playing around with grand utopian ideals, and get America back to the business of liberty.

Because it's either that, or http://jim.com/hayek.htm

I've designed a language that I plan to implement soon in F#. It is not your ordinary language, but a modular language that is usefully-defined only once a user-defined 'language module' is plugged in. It is in the vein of the modern 'language workbench' tools, but far more lightweight. SICP readers will know it as the metalinguistic abstraction. I will explain the motiviation for this language, and will then paste the current spec for discussion.

After many years of typical programming, I've concluded that imperative approaches to programming generally lead to monolothic code bases. This is regardless of the mercilessness with which refactoring is applied. I have concluded that any time one wishes to solve a non-trivial problem in programming, one should find a declarative way to solve that problem. The language I provide gives a foundation upon which declarative languages can be built to solve these problems, thus removing the main impediment to using declarative techniques to solve normal problems.

By customizing the language with an appropriately-defined module, one can express the declarative languages needed to solve programming problems normally implemented in the imperative style. Even high-grade functional programmers will concede that imperative programming has a place in simulation and UI development. With the modular language and one of the languages implemented with it below (DOL), I will try revoke that concession. I will show that simulations and UIs, the typical bread and butter of high-level imperative programming (OOP), are better implemented with a declarative language.

Below is the spec as it is. Please note some formatting was lost. Also note that the syntax is a bit ugly due to the use of s-expressions. I am using a very simple syntax solution to make the language as implementable for myself as possible. I would hope to improve the syntax in a fork later.

If anyone has any questions in person or would like a copy of the more readable original spec, please mail to bryanedds@yahoo.com . Thanks all for reading!

Looks like the vertical bar character | is being pasted as '. Is there a bug in the character map? Hopefully this can be fixed as my language thread (http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Prototyping-New-Language-With-Haskell) doesn't make sense with this mix-up.

To reproduce, create a new forum posting, enter a |, then copy and paste it. Always comes out as ' for me.

There are conclusions that can be drawn from this.

Another reply to Ryan B - perhaps the sexp syntax should be hidden from the user by enabling meta: mode by default.

Right, gonna put my head back down now. Sorry for the bump

Overall, I get this feeling that there is so much great synergy between static and dynamic typing that new languages should be exploring it. Nothing more painful than being trapped strictly in just one or the other.