Ten Year Resident Offering Advice For Cooperation

[steveinbsas]

It's encouraging that you recognize yourself in Borowitz's piece, but discouraging that you fail to understand satire (not to mention irony). It's even more discouraging that you dismiss the consensus on settled science (which differs only in a few minor details).

Since when has the science been settled?

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Since when has science been settled?

On climate change - global warming, to avoid euphemisms - the consensus is overwhelming, but we are learning new details every day.

 

[steveinbsas]

So again...can someone with Temporary status even in their first year do the trámite on their own in the same way I did as a permanent resident? If they meet the 2 year issue. I don't see anything that would preclude them from doing it.

I think the best/easiest/fastest way to get an answer to this question is to go to the federal court that has jurisdiction where they live and ask it.

 

[ElCordobés]

I agree. There seem to be quite number of here in Córdoba that have struggled to maintain status due to job changes, but are no less committed to living/contributing in Argentina. I have one more trip to the Tribunales Federales here as one requested a copy of the new DNI. Will ask that question.

 

[steveinbsas]

On climate change - global warming, to avoid euphemisms - the consensus is overwhelming, but we are learning new details every day.

Since the eight (abbreviated) points I am going to add to this post are from an article that was written in 2007, it should be easy for you to refute them, hopefully with details (aka facts) as opposed to euphemisms and silly labels like idiots, dolts, and cretins that Andy Borowitz used in the New Yorker article in which he wrote,

"(One) of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people (is) the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions."

I know this subject may not appear to have anything to do with with the original topic, but those pushing a "global warming/climate change" agenda may not be motivated to save the planet any more than expo78 was motivated by a desire to help another expat obtain residency. Since you never waste an opportunity to insult anyone who challenges your unfounded assertions, here's an opportunity for you to reply to something using reason and logic...for a change.

PS: I found this with a google search for "fallacies about global warming".

"It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed."

This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Here are several important points made in the article. I will only paste the first sentence or two of each point, except number four which I have copied and pasted in its entirety.

1 - Scientists have accurate historical temperature data
Historical temperature records taken near the surface of the Earth are subject to various biases and recording errors that render them incorrect.


2 - Temperature trends are meaningful and can be extrapolated
That temperature trends plotted over decades are meaningful, and understood to the degree that they can be projected, is one of the greatest fallacies in the claims about man-made global warming.


3 - The accuracy of climate models can be determined from their output
A common practice among climate scientists is to compare the output of their climate models to historical data from meteorological observations. (In fact the models are usually "adjusted" to match that historical data as closely as possible, but let's ignore that for now.)


4 - The consensus among scientists is decisive (or even important)
The extent of a claimed consensus that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring is unknown and the claim of consensus is unsupported by any objective data. However, this is irrelevant because by its nature any consensus is a product of opinions, not facts.

Though consensus determines legal and political decisions in most countries, this simply reflects the number of persons who interpret data in a certain way or who have been influenced by the opinions of others. Consensus does not confer accuracy or “rightness”.

Scientific matters are certainly not settled by consensus. Einstein pointed out that hundreds of people agreeing with him were of no relevance, because it would take just one person to prove him wrong.

Science as a whole, and its near neighbor medicine, are replete with examples of individuals or small groups of researchers successfully undermining the prevailing popular theories of the day. This is not to say that individuals or small groups who hold maverick views are always correct, but it is to say that even the most widely-held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth.

Science is about observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses, not consensus.

5 - The dominance of scientific papers on a certain subject establishes a truth
This fallacy is closely related to the previous discussion of consensus, but here the impact is an indirect consequence of a dominant opinion.

6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation....

In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.

7 - The IPCC is a reliable authority and its reports are both correct and widely endorsed by all scientists
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals (see item 6). There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming.

8 - It has been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused global warming
The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. As the discussion of fallacy 1 showed, there is no certainty that this is the case.
But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter. Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?


The accuracy of a model is determined by the accuracy with which it simulates each climatic factor and climatic process rather than the closeness of the match between its output and the historical data. If the internal processing is correct then so too will be the output, but apparently accurate output does not confer accuracy on the internal processes.

http://scienceandpub.../fallacies.html

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Since the eight (abbreviated) points I am going to add to this post are from an article that was written in 2007, it should be easy for you to refute them, hopefully with details (aka facts) as opposed to euphemisms for idiots, dolts, and cretins like myself that Andy Borowitz used in the New Yorker article...

The accuracy of a model is determined by the accuracy with which it simulates each climatic factor and climatic process rather than the closeness of the match between its output and the historical data. If the internal processing is correct then so too will be the output, but apparently accurate output does not confer accuracy on the internal processes.http://scienceandpub.../fallacies.html

A busy day for me, but I must compliment you for having the imagination to contract INDEC to do your science research, though I'm disappointed in the dead link. Denialism, admittedly, is a tough job - unless you're a lapdog politician for the fossil-fuel industry : http://www.washingto...fcb4_story.html (no offense intended toward genuine lapdogs).

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Part 2

I want to send a 10 lbs. package of canned teas, spices, condiments, olive oil, etc, to my mother in the USA. Let me know if you are headed there and can forward them to her.

Part 3

I want to import a half container of used furniture, clothes and personal effects. True to form, Argentina makes this more difficult than it needs to be. Trouble is, my 6 month time limit as a resident has expired ( Ive been a permament resident for years)
So I need someone to stand in for me.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1804880-detienen-en-ezeiza-a-dos-mujeres-que-llevaban-cocaina-en-el-equipaje

 

[steveinbsas]

http://www.lanacion....-en-el-equipaje

Holy Moly! Drug mules! I hadn't thought of that one!

 

[Ceviche]

Bajo cero

Excellent post...

 

[steveinbsas]

Part 2

I want to send a 10 lbs. package of canned teas, spices, condiments, olive oil, etc, to my mother in the USA. Let me know if you are headed there and can forward them to her.

Part 3

I want to import a half container of used furniture, clothes and personal effects. True to form, Argentina makes this more difficult than it needs to be. Trouble is, my 6 month time limit as a resident has expired ( Ive been a permament resident for years)
So I need someone to stand in for me. Im paying.

It might be "interesting" if a member here actually volunteered to go along with the "plan" to take the 10lb. box of goodies to the states for expo78....

Especially if it was part of a "sting" in which the police were also involved.

If the box actually contains "canned teas, spices, condiments, olive oil, etc." then there should be no problem, but anyone who has watched a few episodes of "Locked Up Abroad" or seen the movie "Left To Die" http://www.imdb.com/...2247134/ would probably be too cautious to risk it, especially when a plastic bottle of body powder full of coke can easily be detected at any international airport.

http://www.lanacion....-en-el-equipaje