@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

For work..I saw a lot of guys just standing around. I always wonder if its something I would enjoy doing. However living in fl.. running around outside in long sleeves and pants would be a deal killer.

My view: Sort the candidates by qualification score and take the top ones.

ChaosEngine said:

Agreed. There have been numerous studies that show that happiness DOES increase with wealth.... up to a point.

Basically, struggling to buy food, pay rent, etc can make life miserable, but once you've got that covered more money won't necessarily make you happier.

In conclusion, money can't buy happiness but it can buy beer/mountain bikes/snowboards/holidays.

bobknight33 said:

Newt
You and the liberal left are the joke. Well not the joke. You side is not funny at all.. You believe you side are the enlightened ones.

But rather you side lives in the dark. Liberals are foolish and wrong in their progressive ideas. These ideas only server to demoralize/ tear down/ destroy society.

Sadly you are so deep in the dark that you don't see it.

@drradon: I agree with you 100% on teaching both and teaching basic arithmetic first and then leading on to proper math once that foundation is established.

@dannym3141,

I was first blindsided by it when my kids came home with multiplication homework and were adamant they couldn't answer it the way I was showing them because it would be marked wrong, it was the wrong way to do multiplication.

The link to the full Manitoba math curriculum is below. The worst sections are under 'Mental Math' with the idea being that you should be able to add/subtract/multiply/divide all numbers in your head with a dozen pages worth of tricks. The tricks being what newtboy was calling 'proofs'. Our curriculum calls them 'techniques' though and I've included an example from the Grade 3 curriculum verbatim after of how it is supposed to be 'taught'.

Overall Math curriculum:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/math/index.html

Grade 3 example:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/math/support_gr3/number.pdf

From page 56:
Describe a mental mathematics strategy that could be used to determine a given basic fact, such as
-doubles (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 7 + 7)
-doubles plus one (e.g., for 6 + 7, think 6 + 6 + 1)
-doubles take away one (e.g., for 6 + 7, think 7 + 7 – 1)
-doubles plus two (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 6 + 6 + 2)
-doubles take away two (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 8 + 8 – 2)
-making 10 (e.g., for 6 + 8, think 6 + 4 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 4)
-commutative property (e.g., for 3 + 9, think 9 + 3)
-addition to subtraction (e.g., for 13 – 7, think 7 + ? = 13)."

Now before you think me and observe there's nothing wrong with showing kids some extra tricks to help them, that is NOT how this is supposed to be used. If you read further, students are REQUIRED to "explore" multiple methods of calculating answers and must demonstrate they know and can use all these 'tricks'. So instead of providing assistance for difficult calculations as it should be, it's used to make ALL calculations difficult, and create extra work, AND makes kids just learning the concept completely overwhelmed with everything you MUST know to get a right answer to 2+2=4.

And here's the link to the Grade 11 review of the basic arithmetic:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/math/ess_mm_gr11/full_doc.pdf

And for the Grade 11 students and teaching them to add/subtract/multiply and divide, the teacher's guide describes this like a subjective discovery process with quotes like this:
"Consequently, mental calculation activities should include periods for thought and discussion.
During these periods, the teacher should encourage students to
-suggest a variety of possible solutions to the same problem
-explain the different methods used to come to the correct answer and their
effectiveness
-explain the thought process that led to an incorrect answer"

An important note is we are not talking about solving complex word problems here or anything, but specifically for calculating a basic arithmetic operation with the different methods being those described from back in Grade 3 already outlined above.

enoch said:

i really do not understand you bob.
i get that you are republican,and lean towards the philosophy of the tea party.

i have absolutely no issue with that,but didn't you admonish my post which was promoting the "justice democrats" as not being a grass roots anti-corporate establishment democrats,but rather a tool for outlets like the young turks? whose FIRST order to address.the FIRST thing they are going after is:money in politics.which is exactly what kyle is talking about.

kyle is also talking about giving the boot to not only all the corporate donors,but the very politicians that have LOST,consistently,because they are more interested in dialing for donors than doing their job.pelosi did not retain her position due to her political acumen and ability to pass progressive legislature,but because that woman is a money funding machine.

kyle even mentions the justice democrats!!!!
as a viable option to combat the corruption in the democratic party due to the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics.

you literally just posted a video by secular talk,which is a founding member of justice democrats!

so which one is it bob?

do you respect and admire a small group of democrats who are part of independent media and are creating a group to combat the corporate,establishment democrats? a group who is already
growing in size,and have already got some politicians on the ballot?

or are you sticking to your position you took on my justice democrat video,which was dismissive and critical?

please help me understand bob,because as of right now you are playing two positions that are philosophically inconsistent.

*promote bob's support of the democrats new caucus "the justice democrats",which i am fairy sure is the seventh sign of the apocalypse.

Truckchase said:

Why have kids if you intend to be selfish into old age?