ssorg99
ssorg99
ssorg99

Considering the temperatures that have recently won the Aeropress brewing competition (~175 degrees F), I think a wider range of temperatures would have been a good idea.

Being pedantic here, but “Goddard” is ambiguous since there’s the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) down in Greenbelt MD, and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) here in NYC just above Toms Diner (as made famous by Seinfeld). GISS is technically an offshoot of GSFC, but is more narrowly focused on climate,

As far as causation/correlation, these conclusions are not based simply on correlation. The mechanism behind anthropogenic global warming was hypothesized and understood even before its effects were observed (as far as I remember... would have to 2x check the literature). Furthermore, using numerical climate

Look, fine, my own experience may not typify the norm. Of course! And your comment did compel me to pass an eye over the linked articles, which are quite interesting and though-provoking (I had actually read the 538 article before, and probably the Economist one as well). However, as I see it, you suggest two things

people don’t read very carefully/critically. it certainly doesn’t add to the level of discourse. It’s only the internet, I wouldn’t worry too much about being called an idiot. I for one do appreciate your contribution to the discussion. Cheers.

I don’t think you’re wrong. I take issue with the idea that “the left” needs to raise the level of its discourse. There’s peer-reviewed science like what rattles around the Journal of Climate, then there’s the more easily digestible IPCC report, then there’s mainstream traditional journalism (recent example: http://www

And look, the whole green economy idea has been floated (by our outgoing POTUS) as a salve to the pressures of carbon regulation, but, frankly, they always sounded like a fantasy to me. I can’t think of anything that will save the economically downtrodden sectors of America besides a HUGE effort to improve the

I saw your other posts. I’m not accusing you of being a rightwing science-hater. I was asking for/critiquing your suggestion for better communication of issues important to the left, and I was calling into question your assumption that sites like gizmodo are somehow the vanguard of liberal thought, and that by

sadly, this is not the case (though it should be)

what is your metric for “most”? Every article I’ve submitted has been thoroughly peer reviewed (trust me, it hasn’t always been pleasant). I’m currently reviewing two papers (one which was withdrawn and resubmitted after intense reviews and extensive revisions). I’ve rejected more papers than I’ve accepted. There are

The problem isn’t that science is a closed loop (academia by its highly specialized nature can only communicate fully with itself), it’s that science is being attacked as being politically driven (an outrageous claim), and being cynically discredited by many (but not all) on the right. I think it’s a serious issue

I think I know the point you’re trying to make... or maybe you’re making two contradictory points. On the one hand, we should be making “more mature” arguments, and on the other we should be better at “tricking” people into voting for democrats rather than republicans. I think it’s obvious that you’re misguided in

learn how to present your arguments in a more sophisticated, mature way

Steph Curry is the real magician... making a 3-1 lead disappear, etc. and so on...