Climate Modeller Wins $10,000 Wager Against Solar Physicists, Fails To Collect (blogspot.com) 195
Layzej writes: Back in 2005, solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev made a $10,000 bet that global temperatures, driven primarily by changes in the Sun's activity, would fall over the next decade. The bet would compare the then record hot years between 1998 to 2003 with that between between 2012 and 2017. With temperatures falling from their peak during the 1998 super El-Nino, and solar output continuing to fall, this seemed like a sure bet. The results are now in and all datasets show that climate modeler James Annan is the clear winner.
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
No Surprise (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change while at the same time claiming to uphold scientific integrity has none to begin with.
Re:No Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change ...
They weren't denying AGW. They just thought the sunspot cycle would dominate. They were wrong.
Anyway, Annan should have used a blockchain based smart contract [wikipedia.org] to implement the wager. Then it would have auto-paid, with no ability to welch.
Re: (Score:3)
If he had, there would have been no bet since time travel would be cheating.
Re:No Surprise (Score:4, Informative)
There's an implicit refutation of AGW in the supposition that solar activity is more consequential to warming than greenhouse gasses.
Absolutely: deniers do. (Score:2)
So they whinge that the temperature has gone down over 12 years while CO2 levels rose. That ONLY makes sense when they are insisting that the climate is being driven by only one variable.
They then scream IT'S THE SUN!!!!! because that too pretends that the climate is a single variable system.
So, yeah, every denier pretty much insists it is a single variable system, they all use either one of those two "arguments" to rebut AGW science.
A reasonless claim made with no evidence. (Score:2, Informative)
That makes it a pure ad hom. And a genetic fallacy too: if it's "from the left" it "must be wrong".
Re: (Score:3)
This is the age of the welsher, Bill. It goes all the way up to the top.
You do realize... (Score:1)
All the AC posters are russian trolls, and if they delete the post., the underlying comments get fucked.
I no longer post to AC's.
Re: (Score:3)
ShanghaiBill is OK. He's a crusty old fuck and wrong about everything, but he's not horrible and usually argues in good faith (though from a misinformed viewpoint). I don't mind him. When the revolution comes, I don't want to see him put up against the wall. He can work at the Workers' Golf Course as the ball washer until he finishes reeducation camp. [Just joking, Bill. You
Re:You do realize... (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot posts don't get deleted. Perhaps they are being moderated below your reading threshold.
As long as you've been around, and you don't know this?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he spent too much time on Twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot posts don't get deleted. Perhaps they are being moderated below your reading threshold.
As long as you've been around, and you don't know this?
*Ahem*
Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot (Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday March 16, 2001 @09:05AM from the i-guess-it-was-inevitable dept.) [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. I seem to recall two posts being deleted many years ago. One was a Scientology related post. I forgot the other. Regardless, you are essentially correct: Slashdot posts do not get deleted (except through force of law).
Re: No Surprise (Score:1)
This is the age of the welsher, Bill.
Sure, Pope; that sort of behavior never used to occur until recently.
A real student of history you are.
Re: (Score:2)
In the corner, no dinner, and strait to bed until you learn to troll properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but ten year old girls are unusually creative when it comes to insults.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "welsher" used to identify someone who makes a bet and doesn't pay off, like say a million-dollar wager which is supposed to go to charity, has absolutely nothing to do with Wales or the Welsh people. The origin of the word had nothing whatsoever to do with the Welsh, who are basically the hillbillies of the UK. Thus, this is not a racist term.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct. DId someone say otherwise?
They chose a single variable, denying others (Score:2)
Re:They chose a single variable, denying others (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with proposing an alternate hypothesis and testing it, that's how science works, failures are just as important.
The problem is getting so emotionally involved that you would bet a large sum instead of a pizza or case of beer and not accept the negative result and change viewpoints.
Re:They chose a single variable, denying others (Score:5, Insightful)
then you are denying human activity is a factor.
They did not deny it, they just underestimated it.
You cannot bet on temps dropping without being a climate science denier. The two are mutually exclusive.
Nonsense. They were NOT denying global warming. They were just underestimating how quickly it would dominate other factors. There is no doubt that solar activity affects earth's temperature. There is no (reasonable) doubt that human activity affects earth's temperature. Disagreeing about the relative magnitudes does not make them "deniers".
Re: (Score:1)
"They did not deny it, they just underestimated it."
Probably half of deniers flat out deny it's happening.
The rest are doing exactly what you're saying. They're denying that humans like themselves are having a measurable impact on the world's climate and insisting that everything is within normal expectations for the planet or that anything we see going on are a result of forces we have no hope of controlling.
So yes, those two were deniers. To make their bet they had to deny there was an actual sustained gl
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they would, you just don't understand simple math.
Re: (Score:1)
I know you are probably joking, but it would not have auto-paid. Blockchain knows nothing of real-world facts.
Now, you could have a 2of3 multisig to release the funds and have a neutral trusted party have the 3rd key.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are probably joking
Yes, I was joking.
but it would not have auto-paid.
It could. Smart contracts can be pre-funded with crytocurrencies.
Blockchain knows nothing of real-world facts.
A smart contract can pull from an external data source, at a predetermined time and date.
Re: (Score:3)
just re-label the guy as Vladimir the Welcher....
there is not one society that I know of that really will deal with a known welcher and will actively shun him...
problem solved
Oh don't get me wrong, his "comrades" will laugh onhow sharp he was to fool the other scientist, but slowly
as the influence move away, he will be sidelined
Re:No Surprise (Score:4, Informative)
You are being sarcastic, right? Because the USA currently has a huge welcher as President right now.
Re: (Score:2)
that's funny, but we are talking about scientist which should always be above politics.
and yes, the current president of the USA is a known user of bankruptcy and other tricks
of the trade so as not to pay and has even said "we need to print more money"
Wales (Score:2)
there is not one society that I know of that really will deal with a known welcher
Not even Wales? Their whole culture is built around welsh. To them, actions come before facts so often that the verb comes first in the sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
A welcher is no the same as a person whom is a Welsh but the Joke is welcomed
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, Annan should have used a blockchain based smart contract [wikipedia.org] to implement the wager. Then it would have auto-paid, with no ability to welch.
Perhaps we need a new word for this problem. Instead of welshing on bets, it would now be called russianing.
Be glad. (Score:1)
You'll never have to deal with those scumbags again, and it only cost you $10k.
If they had paid up, you'd never hear the end of them.
This is actually a tool I use. (Score:5, Interesting)
Loaning someone $20, and them not paying you back is a great way to never deal with them again.
"You still owe me, I'm not giving you shit."
One of my nephews lost out on $1200 worth of car troubles for $20.
Fuck them if they don't pay, he has no currency. (paul simon, if you don't get it.) ... ...
He holds no currency
He is a foreign man
you knew they were dishonest when you bet (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would anyone dishonest enough to deny climate change be considered honest enough to honor a wager?
Re:you knew they were dishonest when you bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you knew they were dishonest when you bet (Score:5, Insightful)
How the fuck did you get modded up, they weren't climate change "deniers", they simply believed the solar cycle was going to be a more significant influence over the next 10 years than climate change, they were wrong but it was not an unreasonable bet.
You might have had a point, except his defense for not paying is that the duration wasn't long enough, and if you wait another 20 years it will cool again. That's pretty much global warming denial in my book, which is the main driver of climate change.
Re:you knew they were dishonest when you bet (Score:5, Informative)
The solar cycle is huge, and back then no we didn't know the significance, it was at best an each way bet with the information on hand.
Solar cycle is not huge, it's about 0.1%
http://www.am.ub.edu/~blai/com... [ub.edu]
In 2005, it was very well known that greenhouse effect was much bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2005, it was very well known that greenhouse effect was much bigger.
True, but at least these folks were willing to put their money where their mouth is. It suggests they at least believed what they were saying. That's better than most on that side of the 'debate'.
Take contrarian hero Richard Lindzen who would only take 50:1 odds [reason.com]. It suggests he's aware that he's 50 times more likely to be wrong than right.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that reading the article is impossible; reading the summary is beyond most Slashdotters, but couldn't you read the title?
I did give it a quick once over before I posted the article. Nonetheless I am able to imagine that they intended to honour the bet when it was made, but expected they wouldn't have to. Possibly they aren't as wealthy as they expected to be, or had been at the time of the bet. It is presumptuous to believe otherwise.
Re:you knew they were dishonest when you bet (Score:5, Informative)
Why would anyone dishonest enough to deny climate change be considered honest enough to honor a wager?
He didn't deny climate change. Quite the opposite his, side of the wager was that there many things influencing climate change and he wagered that the climate would cool based on the weighting he applied to those influences.
Not everyone is a "climate change denier". Some people are legitimately wrong.
Forget Ramen (Score:2)
These researchers must be pretty poor. After paying out $10k, all they'd be able to afford to eat is Crow.
Put the money in an escrow account (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'll be arguing about who gets the interest.
Re: (Score:3)
You can only pick 2 of those, the third eliminates all of the prospects.
Do credit unions offer this service? (Score:2)
Can you have all three if you replace the banker with a credit unioner?
i mean, is this trustworthy? (Score:1, Insightful)
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out. it looks like temperature readings from... somewhere? someone?, hosted by "woodfortrees.org", which seem to support the claims of the blog post. um, okay? who the fuck are these people?
no, i'm not accusing slashdot editors of political bias. that is precluded by hanlon's razor, as they have already proven themselves utterly incompetent.
nor am i claiming that the story is ev
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"[the facts of the case] i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out"
and
"i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet."
The first probably leads to the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out.
The graph is showing that every available temperature data set, whether it be it from USA [woodfortrees.org] or UK [woodfortrees.org], land [woodfortrees.org] or satellite [woodfortrees.org], and even those [woodfortrees.org] by skeptics [woodfortrees.org] - all show the same thing. Temperature is warming by about 0.2C/decade. The later period is warmer than the former. The climate modeler had greater insights into the mechanisms that affect global mean temperature than the solar physicists. The winner is clear.
For more authoritative reportage, you can read this nature article [nature.com] from when the bet was made, this New S
Dramatic reversal of 6000 year cooling trend. (Score:2)
Temp rise acellerating (Score:3)
The "warming" is actually more like ...
Not even close. Even over 50 years the trend is closer to 0.2/decade:
GISTEMP [nasa.gov] Least squares trend line; slope = 0.177 per decade over the last 50 years.
BEST [berkeleyearth.org] Least squares trend line; slope = 0.178 per decade over the last 50 years.
But of course this has continued to accelerate so over the last couple decades you get:
GISTEMP [nasa.gov] Least squares trend line; slope = 0.21 per decade over the last 20 years.
BEST [berkeleyearth.org] Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
RSS Satellite data [ssmi.com] (which d
Re: (Score:2)
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.
And I'll also add that just because the solar scientists made the bet doesn't make them climate science deniers. But I would say they were poor solar scientists because they should have known that the solar variation that we've seen in studying the sun is not great enough to overcome the effects of radiative forcing over more than a few short years. They should have known
Noteworthy Wagers (Score:2)
The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.
If you look up "Scientific Wager" [google.ca] in google, chances are at least a couple of the top ten results reference this bet. For example, here [newscientist.com] and here [wikipedia.org].
Somebody needs to tell these Russians... (Score:3)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]
and this is news because... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Is that what the news on slashdot is now... every time two random dudes make a bet, if one does not pay up, it's an article on slashdot?
On the plus side, there is going to be a lot of articles
Re: (Score:1)
Bet you 10K there wont be
Re: (Score:3)
Is that what the news on slashdot is now... every time two random dudes make a bet, if one does not pay up, it's an article on slashdot?
This wager was written up in Nature [nature.com] at the time of the bet. It was included in New Scientist's Five scientific theories decided by wager [newscientist.com] It is included in Wikipedia's article [wikipedia.org] on scientific wager.
If your wager is literally included in the definition of a scientific wager, then I would not be shocked to find it written about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of ego maniacs (Score:2)
Bet something normal like $20 or a steak dinner. No need to wave your cock around over these science bets, unless... It was all for the publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting to see who is willing to pony up some money to back up their rhetoric, and who is merely spewing denial that they do not themselves believe. For instance, look at Joe Basatardi [slashdot.org] who in 2011 said "the earth will cool .1 to .2 Celsius in the next ten years, according to objective satellite data [woodfortrees.org]." He later refused to follow through when a number of people accepted the bet. Good thing too as his prediction is not looking so good.
Then there's renowned climate skeptic Richard Lindzen who wo
BREAKING: Climate denialists are full of shit... (Score:2)
...and continue to make wildly wrong predictions vs. mainstream climate science. News at 11.
Seriously though, climate denialism (or more accurately, climate conspiracism) is the most dangerous form of denialism/conspiracism known to man. Anti-vaxxers, holocaust denialists, they're horribly offensive and can cause greater short-term harm, but in the medium/long term they're mildly annoying pissants compared to the planet-baking, civilization-ruining potential of climate denialism. Nobody holds as much potent
Re:Not so fast ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why the fuck should we care about your anecdote?
Oh, I see. You're one of those jackoffs.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologise for already posting in this thread, so that I cannot contribute to a +5, Flamebait, just to piss off Jerry's fanboi with mod points.
Maybe next time.
Re: (Score:2)
This folks, is what happens to minds, who are only able to bear false witness. Sad.
Re:Not so fast ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This folks, is what happens to minds, who are only able to bear false witness. Sad.
I've tried to understand the phenomena. I think a lot of it stems from training in youth, or perhaps lack of it. While many religions do many good things, they generally all teach belief in what can't be proven beyond any possible doubt, since that is usually the point. Its a curious skill, because it paves the way to believe things without a factual basis. Those without any training at all, and in particular those that have no desire to look at any problem or situation in detail similarly gain the skill or lack of skill in just believing what is in front of them.
Being part of a tribe exacerbates this, particularly if the tribes major goals are considered threatened by members of an opposing tribe. Things seem to be rejected simply because they are of the other. Indeed it seems quite common to make the other as scary as possible, which further makes it difficult for members of the tribe to consider betraying the tribes ideas or even considering the other. Of course if you add religion back in it just adds to the effect, since many religious people are well used to both compromising for the greater good and blocking out any information that conflict with the "greater truths"
Add in foreign powers that want to crank all of our divisions up to infinity and beyond, plus lots of ways to do it, and you have today. Perhaps 1984 was a bit late, and I doubt we have seen the apogee of it yet, but I think we are in it.
The only cure I see is better correct training in critical thinking, preferably when people are young. The scientific method isn't just for science. You can think, reason, understand, hypothesis, check your hypothesis, etc, etc, on any subject. I think this is also why your see the right push intelligent design, textbook editing, etc. They want to indoctrinate early, since it benefits the tribe. Indeed I think much of it is behind the push for anti-intellectualism for well, much of my lifetime I suppose.
In short, saying we need to teach people to think more critically, to be more skeptical, to always test beliefs and theories, is easier said than done. First they would need to win a lot of elections to even have a chance to do that kind of change, which would of course freak out the other side causing even more escalation.
It is a rather curious thing. The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed, which come to think of it, brings us full circle, since that state is exactly the state that makes it easier for foreign powers and well really anyone to manipulate the populous, with the ongoing manipulation from well a lot of sources making it near impossible to take the steps to stop the ongoing manipulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not so fast ... (Score:1)
The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed
The only difference in that regard between the far right and the far left is that the far right wants to keep you so uninformed that you don't realize you're uninformed, while the far left wants to "reeducate" you to the point that you're convinced that you're informed. The end result is essentially the same.
Re: The other difference is there is no moderate r (Score:2)
The far left are almost nonexistent
lol
Re:Not so fast ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen, brother! I have never really understood how anyone could consider blind faith a virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it every single time I run across it.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimat
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, I can't see any difference between "outside the limits of any such proof" and "can't be proven."
Like most believers, you use rhetoric because logic is beyond you.
Re: Not so fast ... (Score:2)
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it
Hate to break it to you but when you 'disagree" with a mere objective observation, your whole premise has been shown to be based on delusion.
Face it; you're either mildly insane or very stupid...
Re:Not so fast ... (Score:4, Interesting)
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof.
This is clearly false. The god of most religions, including all the Christian varieties, is certainly within limits of proof of existence.
If a deity materialized a fifty mile long floating sign in the sky saying "I exist", and invited modern day Thomas to stick his test swabs in His wounds, the existence most certainly would be proven.
The claim that gods are outside the limits of proofs is contingent on the god not doing anything that is verifiable or that can be ascribed to other causes. In itself, that is heavy evidence (although not proof) that gods either do not exist, are impotent, or don't give a fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a better way to put it is that there is no experiment which could falsify the hypothesis that there is a God. Certainly none known currently, or surely many people would have run it. Thus, the existence of God is not a scientific question.
Re: (Score:1)
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
Religions make absolute statements about the physical world such as is one must not allow a 13 year-old girl, victim of a violent rape, access to the "morning-after pill" but demand that she bear the rapist's child, or that terrorists bombing of infidel civilians is a God-commanded action.
Religions have been the source of much worldly evil when they leave leave philosophy to make religious dictums.
(This written by a follower of a 2000 year old Jewish heretic whose philosophy was perverted into a religion by
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand.
But that's just sophistry.
First, you're awfully loose with the definitions of "can't". It's either possible to prove (and thereby disprove) the existence of God, or it isn't. The 'ability' or 'inability' is the same thing, since you're asserting that it's what determines 'can' or 'can't.
Second, there are claims that certainly CAN be proven or disproven; any interaction with the physical world, for example, man claims of which do in fact exist. There isn't any credible evidence of this interaction.
Third,
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common, and quite ignorant, argument often heard from Christians. It's a dumb argument. Firstly, proving that God exists is trivial. You produce him. Measure him. Publish a report on this. Boom. His existence is proven. You are correct that his non-existence can not be proven. Non-existence can't be proven by anyone. You can't prove that pink unicorns that go invisible as soon
Appeal to Expert logical fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people (here, especially) reject the 'appeal to expert' logical fallacy. It takes some form of 'experts say' and related. They want to see the data and decide for themselves. Whenever they hear an appeal to expert, it turns them off. But if I don't have the time or expertise to delve into the data, one can accept suitably formed appeals. [nasa.gov]
Some part of the response to climate change does involve power grabs and redistribution.
It is important to separate the question of whether there is global warming or anthropogenic global warming, and the responses to it.
Re: (Score:2)
One more note: are the groups listed in the NOAA link anti-industry? Tree-huggers? Doom porn aficionados? Anti-American? I sincerely doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem is that you do not understand what a DNA test means,. You haven't read the report on the DNA testing of Warren. The report says she has ten times more Native American DNA than the average Utah resident (which was the main reference DNA material). You are basically only partially able to read advanced material and understand it. You are so deep into your political belief that every thought you have is polluted by ignorance promoted by the current crop og GOP maggots. I assume this is from a rece
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, here in Sweden, we've had the longest and warmest late spring/summer/early autumn on record, and we've still not had the first hard frost we should normally have had 2-3 weeks ago.
You were saying...?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's suggesting that the problem is stinky refrigerators. A bit of Arm and Hammer might do some good.
Light, Dumbass. (Score:2)
WTF, really?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Rusians, right? (Score:1)
Yes, 1 possible ancestor out of hundreds or thousands makes her an indian. Who knew libs would take oneâ"drop fetishism so far?
Warren also went on TV saying her paternal grandparents were racistly against their son marrying her 97%+ white grandmother and tried to forbid it. As if they could even tell.
What a lying fakeâ"identity piece of trash.
Re: Rusians, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump wanted to use DNA, so tough cookies. That just means Trump is going to skip paying yet another bill he created for himself. This shouldnâ(TM)t be surprising since he tried quite often to avoid paying everyone from banks to regular contractors. The smaller the contractor, the better, since it meant the losses might bankrupt them and heâ(TM)d get all the work and materials free! I suggest every Trump supporter skip paying their bills and just point at the president when asked why they think they shouldnâ(TM)t have to pay up.
Most Native Americans, myself included, donâ(TM)t just use DNA. In fact it is possible that someone who is lily white can be considered Native. We usually base it off of cultural upbringing, hence why my friend (who is as white as his Finnish first name and ancestry would suggest) who was raised from 2 in a mixed Native/Finnish family has all the rights of a Native on tribal land. Since he was raised within the tribe, he is considered of the tribe. Conversely some people who are 1/4 Native by blood (genetics) arenâ(TM)t in many cases because they donâ(TM)t know the tribal history/customs.
Re: Rusians, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't move the goal posts. The issue was whether or not she had one distant Native American ancestor. She does.
I don't expect him to ever pay, though. He never pays money he owes, and he always lies about what he said. His word is as worthless as his deals are.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population. If that's the bar to clear to claim tribal ancestry then it means she's not even close to being unique in her claims.
All Warren produced was a DNA test with inconclusive results, based on DNA from south american DNA samples. If she has a native american ancestor then it is not Cherokee as she claimed. She opened the door to ridicule with her claims in the first place, she could have dropped it and people li
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population.
Yet that is all she ever claimed: that she had one distant ancestor who was Native American. Or even that that's what the story in her family was, and she wasn't sure. She's not claiming she's Native American now, she's just showing that that family story turns out to be true.
But of course people need to move the goal posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Warren doesn't have 1/1024th native American ancestry. We have no idea how much she has. This is not how DNA testing works. The only thing your post shows is that you are ignorant as well as retarded. I hope you get well soon, while recovering from your partial encephalectomy, read the paragraph below to cure some of your ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
We actually live in a federal constitutional republic:
1) Federal [google.com]: Federated, consisting of several parts functioning as one.
2) Constitutional: Based on a constitution as the foundation of the law.
3) Republic [google.com]: We elect representatives who vote on the issues of government.
Occasionally states will put issues to referendum, and that is an instance of pure democracy. But our form of government is not pure democracy.
Re: Rusians, right? (Score:1)
That's not exactly what happened but you keep thinking that because explaining complicated things to simple minded people like you is far more complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of places with Earth temp but I see no data on Sun temp yearly. Would be nice to see the two charts side by side. All I see is Earth temp and them saying it went up. Nothing about if maybe they were wrong about the Sun temps going down and maybe that forecast was wrong and the Sun temp went up.
Here's Temp, CO2, sunspot number, and solar irradiance on a single graph [woodfortrees.org]. Sunspot number is a proxy for solar irradiance, and lets us peer further into the past. But even direct measurements show that solar irradiance has been dropping while CO2 and temperature rise.
You can see that in 1970 you may have had some reason to believe that temp correlates directly with solar activity, and it undoubtedly does have an impact. Greenhouse gasses have dominated over the last several decades though. To the exten