Slashdot Mirror

In the unlikely case that you were not: Show me any evidence from a reputable source that Ayers wrote DOMF and that refutes all the statements to the contrary (see 1 or 2 for instance). Tell me why a part-time university lecturer, who in his other job is a State Senator and is campaigning for the US senate needs do scholarly publication (something that is usually of necessity only for full-time tenure-track positions).

Well, there is heavy suggestion from the structure of the writing that it was Ayers: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html And, of course, he admitted it. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/10/bill-ayers-admits-he-wrote-dreams-of-my-father.html

Also, since you seem less-than-well-informed about student writing in the HLR: The president of the HLR is also editor-in-chief, and as such contributes as well. The president is selected from the editors, so any president has done some writing before. Most if not all student writing in HLR takes the form of Notes, Recent Cases, Recent Legislation, and Book Notes. The _articles_ in HLR are by professors, judges, and law practitioners, so it is entirely unsurprising that neither Obama nor any of his other sophomore classmates have published any articles in HLR.

He would have published, either before or after, because he is a lawyer. A Juris Doctorate is a doctorate level degree. He is an academic, and law students (promising ones, at least) do write law review articles -- and sign them. Obama didn't so any of the things that a law review editor does -- he didn't write or even cosign on any articles, he's never published as an attorney, and he didn't even get a Supreme Court clerkship like most HLR editors. He has every appearance of someone who just spending time and checking off boxes on a resume.

Although... Hospital ERs (at least in Virginia) are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Payment gets worked out later. Expenses for those that cannot pay get shifted to the rest of us. So treatment is basically a right. With rights come responsibilities.

Not really. There are no responsibilities whatsoever on the part of the patient.

You're referring to EMTALA. EMTALA requires that if someone shows up at an ER with an emergency in a hospital that takes medicare, then the hospital has to treat first and send the bill later.

In all other cases the hospital is entitled to determine your ability to pay before starting treatment.

EMTALA has lead to some interesting things:

- Hospitals closing their ER. If you don't have an ER, then EMTALA doesn't apply.
- Free-standing unaffiliated urgent care centers that don't take medicare. EMTALA doesn't apply.
- If you encourage the patient to voluntarily leave & go to a different hospital, EMTALA doesn't apply. Michelle Obama was in charge of such a program when she worked at a Chicago hospital.

RuPaul and Ron Paul. It kind of fits, so to speak.

From the outside they are both.... a bit odd. Under the covers...Ru..Ewww! ... Ron...Yikes!

2012 - The R. Paul Revolution - The ticket with snap! - Ron Paul will do for for politics what RuPaul does for culture!

I do not know much of anything about centrifuges or uranium, but I know I have seen a number of articles claiming that this was designed to speed up centrifuges to the point that the uranium was rendered useless.

Here are two examples I found with a quick google search, not necessarily the most credible sources, but there are plenty of people claiming it:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/wikileaks_stuxnet_cyberwar_and.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/stuxnet-worm-did-likely-target-iranian-nuclear-facilities/66604/

The Forbes article that first (AFAIK) broke the story at a national level. Not a happy-day sort of read.

President Obama's Father's Socialism

An article on Cloward-Piven Strategy

Another Cloward-Piven article

Those ought to explain why he could easily send money from the government to anywhere without caring about the plight of the people he's sending money to: He wants to weaken America. The fastest way to do that is to weaken our economy further by spending massive amounts of what we don't have to spend and by getting massive amounts of people to believe they are Entitled to "free money".

Remember - as intelligent and nice as President Obama is, he drew his dreams and values from his father. While that's commendable, his father regarded America as a country whose wealth was drawn from the rest of the world' poor. President Obama's father also felt it was appropriate to drain America's wealth so it could be redistributed entirely to the poor - not just a "little equalization".

And those dreams and thoughts are what drive our President.

Full Disclosure - I didn't vote for him, and I'm an Independent.

Decided not to moderate and simply prove you wrong. One idiot making stupid comments doesn't mean the tea party are racists as a group no more than some leftist anarchist looting stores makes all liberals into whackjobs. Frankly, I call anyone who says otherwise a racist themselves.

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-tea-partiers-speak
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
http://www.theroot.com/views/should-black-folks-give-tea-party-second-look?page=0,1&hpid=topnews
http://www.theroot.com/views/who-you-callin-uncle-tom
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html (this is the article that MSNBC cut apart to show gun-toting crazies at tea party rallies - except that it was a black man carrying that weapon freely and nobody thought he was a danger, kinda shoots your theory down doesn't it?)

Certain groups are terrified of what the Tea Party stands for, and they've played the race card in order to try and stop it. The fact that you believe it and espouse this shit means you're just a mindless patsy that can't think for yourself.

OP here, the term is taken from the essay "The Productive Class and the American Aristocracy". It distinguishes those who create wealth and jobs -- as compared to those who not only create nothing, but actively despise the productive class for being who they are. "Aristocracies commonly prevent talented individuals from earning more wealth then their social betters, and today's progressive aristocracy runs true to form. Far from being the most talented individuals, its recruits are 'people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in.'"

It really goes into conspiracy-theory territory here:

BP Subcontractor warned of incomplete design documents

BP cut corners while constructing well

Liberals claim Haliburton at fault

BP, Transocean, Halliburton will blame one another for the spill

It's going to be a real wham-dinger seeing them fight this one out ...

And both of us have to thank the Democratic Party for this wonderfully creative and innovative weaselese, that started it all: "We support the troops, but not their mission."

Reading the article, it's pretty clear that who we have to thank is a conservative columnist reporting a bunch of imaginary conversations he had in his head with straw-man liberals. Note to Mr. Robinson: lots of people have imaginary conversations in which we display our slashing wit and insight until our opponents slink away in shame, but most of us don't embarrass ourselves by publishing them.

Then I support Osama bin Laden, but not his mission.

And both of us have to thank the Democratic Party for this wonderfully creative and innovative weaselese, that started it all: "We support the troops, but not their mission."

Islamofascists are really "Mufsidoon engaged in Hiraba."

I'm not sure that helps at all, what do you think of this article?

Do you think that hospitals get to stop treatment when bills mount up?

Actually, in some cases, yes.

You get to stop going to the ER? We get to say "oops, no bucks, so sorry".

It gets done. It gets billed out. It doesn't get paid. That's why Miami, Florida is about to shut down 1/3 of it's public hospital facility.

Yes and no. If you show up at an emergency room (with an emergent condition) at a hospital that takes medicare/medicaid, then they have to treat you first and send you the bill later under EMTALA.

For everything else, the health care provider is fully entitled to establish that you have the ability to pay, and is under no obligation to treat you if you are unable to pay.

As a side effect, EMTALA doesn't apply if the hospital doesn't have an emergency department, so many hospitals are closing them since they lose so much money in the ER.

You're also starting to see independent ER facilities that don't take medicare/medicaid and therefore don't fall under EMTALA.

And while at the University of Chicago Medical Center, Michelle Obama started a program to encourage poor patients who arrived at the ER to turn around and go to other hospitals.

I somewhat agree with you, except I'd consider the pivotal event to be WWII, the effects just didn't start showing up until the the sixties. My guess is that the great collapse is in progress already. I don't think it's going to be a single cataclysmic event, it'll be more like Charlie Chaplin falling off of a cliff and hitting every rock on the way down.

Currently though, we're still the world's largest manufacturer, although China is on target to surpass us within the next couple of years.

I agree with you about the island. Perhaps this would be a good time for a Nockian Remnant to consider a consortium to start buying some up.

Also I note your position regarding Jefferson's belief that the country must be self-sufficient. There's a new political party you might be interested in that agrees with you.

Well, there are laws against stealing data from computer systems.

There have been a lot of people claiming they were stolen, so maybe she assumed that was the case. But emails are stolen all the time - often revealing information that Boxer is all too willing to use (without comment on how it was obtained), so long as it supports her agenda. But all of a sudden now she's concerned about unauthorized access to some other country's computers.

There was a claim of responsibility by the whistle-blower among the files.

The emails were sent to the media before they got out in public.

Plus, there are plenty of suspects.

And if you appreciate science, I found an interesting analysis from an expert (get it - he's an expert, so you can't question it without *years* of advanced study) which basically proves that it had to be an inside job.

Going to be lots of fun pawing through NASA's dirty climate laundry.

We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive.

Comply with FOIA

There is nothing out of context about the fraud involved in selectively using a temperature proxy only for specific time periods when it agrees with your preconceived notion. That is "Mike's trick ... to hide the decline [in the tree ring proxy temperature]."

Let me guess - you are amongst those who believe that "several studies prove that the primary force of climate change is the sun" pointing to the nice graphs with the nice correlation between [some supposed measure of sun activity] and temperature (and suddenly correlation proves causation) over a couple of years. And that you refuse to believe anyone telling you that outside that couple of years, the correlation simply ceases to exist, and the the papers on purpose "cut off the decline".

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Owned.

There is nothing out of context about the fraud involved in selectively using a temperature proxy only for specific time periods when it agrees with your preconceived notion. That is "Mike's trick ... to hide the decline [in the tree ring proxy temperature]."

Forget the emails. All they show is a few very prestigious climate scientists "hiding behind" intellectual property rights, refusing to adhere to FOIA rules (both of these normally anathema to /.ers), deleteing data and emails that might be incrimintory, revealing that they have manipulated peer review by keeping skeptical papers out, even to the point of changing the definition of peer review, refusing to release their data, caliming a peer reviewed article = 'settled science', exulting in the death of skeptics, attempting (successfully) to get editors they don't like fired. Just normal boys will beboys stuff. Nothing to see here> Move along.

But this is /. How about looking at the code? Like here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ or how about a little sympathy for a programmer, Harry. See what he has to say: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt or look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Or how about daling with teh mathematics of it all: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html

So forget the emails; look at the code. Then come back here and say, with a straight face, that the data has not been manipulated.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. source

For many years to come one will wonder if the data presented to support claims such as this has been "tricked" to conform to someone's belief instead of representing reality.

Sigh.

Oh well, at least we don't have any money to pay for it....(not that it matters, apparently)

Grow up.

http://www.physorg.com/news162795064.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html

But since you're convinced Hansen is on the up-and-up (or simply preprogrammed to agree with him because of which political side you're on), I doubt the truth will change your mind.

After all, you're one of the same greenpeace retards who stops us from having a sane Nuclear power policy (and thus forces us to burn coal and oil).

WTF dude? I don't like the healthcare bill either, but government already does all that.

What, and that's supposed to make it alright?!!

This has been going on a long time, get your head out of your ass and stop bleating the republican line.

Why would a Republican such as myself not stand behind core conservative beliefs? I stand 100% behind the idea of a non-intrusive limited government.

Iran hasn't waged war outside its borders in 300 years.

I'd call supplying Hamas with missiles and money to attack Israel "waging war outside its borders."

The Iran - Hamas Connection.

Let me see...Because this is a kdawson article? He MUST have his daily hate dose.

Indeed... KDawson being the source, the implication may well be, that it ought to be the government that should drive "innovation". Except, uh-oh, Bill Gates is already advising politicians too. Nobel Prize can't be far away...

What about this?

Or stuff like this?

And what would life be like if I didn't mention this? (pdf wanting)

May 19, 2008 Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?' Marc Sheppard The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question: "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?" How many, indeed? Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html

I think this would be a good place to link to one of today's article in AmericanThinker.com
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

Titled: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming

Give it a read.
It's an eye-opener.

A choice quote:

1. Each year 186 billion tons of CO2 enter the earth's atmosphere. Of that, only 6 billion tons are from human activity (3.2%). Some 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and the rest from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

We contribute less than 5%.
5.

Cheers!

McCain cannot stop 527s from doing anything, if he coordinated anything with them, even if attempting to make them stop negative campaigning, he has to count their efforts against his expenditures. I don't mean to call you a moron seeing how this was Obama's claim, but he knows full well that you can't control 527s and keep them as 527s. McCain has and did admonish them when they stepped out of line but he cannot exert any control over them as Obama knows.

Obama managed to get moveon.org's 527 shut down, got Progressive Media USA vastly scaled back, and he also asked people not to donate to 527s.

Saying 'I don't want to see any 527 ads on my behalf' is not illegal. Saying 'Do not donate to 527s' is not illegal.

That is probably what he was wanting McCain to do.

The amazing thing is that Republicans understood this '527' condition five months ago, and were mocking his concern about Republican 527s by saying they hadn't shown up and claiming his worries about them were an excuse to not accept public financing.

As it turns out, of course, Obama was right, and they did show up, and Obama spent his money countering them. Money he wouldn't have had if he'd opted into public financing.

> You don't trust wiki or the articles it cites but you DO trust a guy who has devoted his life...

Nope, Wikipedia is broken by design. But it probably has enough right in this case to say Luskin proabably has more of a life than just his running feud with Krugman.

> You're right, the current economic crisis clearly proves that bankers, presidents with MBAs, and
> other people who have actually done "things" know economics much better than nobel laureates.

Yup. The current crisis is a result of marxism, not a failure of capitalism. The "President with an MBA" warned of the danger Freddie and Fannie posed to our economy repeatedly and loudly. Hell, even the 'ol Arkansas Horndog tried to reign em in. The normally Democrat loving McCainiac signed onto an effort to stop the ACORN inspired madness going on. Freddie and Fannie are government creatures having nothing at all to do with a free market economy. And since this bailout didn't disolve Freddie and Fannie we will be repeating this crisis in a decade.

> Also, "marxist" as an insult? Really? Get with the times, the cold war is over.

No it isn't over. Reagan defeated the Soviet Union but he didn't get a chance to finish the War. The War isn't over until we face up to and defeat the 5th column still working it's way through American Society spreading rot and ruin behind it. ACORN, most of academia, most of the higher echlons of the Democrat Party most certainly including (just listing the ones most responsible for this crisis as examples) but not limited to: Barack Obama, Charlie Rangel[sp], Barney Frank, Chris Dodd. All these people knew they were creating a disaster and didn't care.

Try this if you really want to be scared:

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

> "These are the same forward thinking people who awarded Al Gore a prize for his
> important work raising awareness of the dangers of global warming."

He made a documentary. And a bad one full of factual errors at that. For that he gets a Nobel Peace Prize? President Reagan defeated the Soviet Union with but a word, freeing millions from slavery and tyranny without a single shot fired. Al Gore => Ronald Reagan? On Peace? We obviously aren't on the same planet.

Richard M. Nixon - Duke University School of Law (3rd in Class) - Watergate; The Imperial Presidency
Bill Clinton - Yale Law School - Travelgate; The Line Item Veto
Franklin Roosevelt - Columbia Law School - The New Deal (Constitutional only because of "The switch in time that saved nine"
Abraham Lincoln - Admitted to Illinois Bar - Suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus on Union soil
Woodrow Wilson - University of Virginia Law School - Permitted introduction of segregation of several federal departments

Being a lawyer does not guarantee that a person "understands" the Constitution any better than you or I. In fact, I think it makes things worse because lawyers are trained just to pick a conclusion and argue their way backwards to justify it. That's not how the Constitutionality of actions should be judged.

Furthermore, teaching Constitutional Law does not equate to being a scholar on it.
I graduated law school from a Top 20 Law School ("the mythical elite tier") and my (very effective) constitutional law professor's specialty was law and religion, not the Constitution. Teaching Constitutional Law does not mean that you are an expert on it.

Obama was a Senior Lecture at Chicago, which means he was non-tenured and an adjunct professor at best. His published legal work (or lack of it) sheds very little light on his view of the Constitution. Source. The only published work of his has been unearthed is his Note that he wrote for the Harvard Law Review. The title of that Note is "TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES." Constitutional Law it is not.

The more you look at it, the more you realize that both parties abuse the Constitution when appropriate. Hell we've ignored entire provisions of it quite blatantly for much of its existance. See U.S. Const. Art I Sec. 2 ("The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;"). Don't think that a person knows more just because he was a Harvard Law Review Editor. For every Barack Obama it produced, there's an Alger Hiss to go along with him.

this week, it looks like the Obama campaign's "Chicago Rules" have turned out to be bringing a knife to a gunfight.

You forgot to add that Global Warming is another factor in keeping pirates in check, as shown by this chart. Since this whole scheme is made to stop Global Warming, that would increase the number of pirates even faster than you can imagine!

I'll tell you what, try opening a history book. It isn't that hard, and if you look around, you will find schools practically giving them away when they buy new ones.

Oh, and in case you were referring to how the Vietnam war was lost, take a look at this. Oh, and here is another source that seems to believe that the press lost the war for us. It's not quite Rush Limbaugh like you wanted, but personally, I don't know why you would only trust his word. I always assumed you were too smart to fall for propaganda like that. (and yes, I know what you meant)

From what I've read, current CO2 levels are at the low end of what plant life can tolerate.

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million
years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere
than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures
to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the
world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant
productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

Past CO2 levels have been documented in peer-reviewed journals:

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume
tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7
times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

This discussion may prove enlightening:

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times
the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon
dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably
higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better...
And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur
extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide
increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of
photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they
started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs
really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the
neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible
with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this
suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first
dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second,
the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly
tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous...
The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present
ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides
for a much greater biogenic diversity.

There is speculation that the US had a military space program called Blackstar, that used a high-speed bomber to launch small orbital vehicles similar to the National Aerospace Plane -- although this would be considered two-stage-to-orbit.
What Aviation Week & Space Tech has to say about it, claiming an modified XB-70 was used as the launch vehicle.
Another, more whackjob, account.

I submitted this as a story when AW&ST originally broke the story but it as rejected. I was/am fascinated by the idea that we might've had an entire space program, with astronauts working out there on a regular basis, that is basically unknown to the public. It seems pretty unlikely but there's a lot of material to support the idea.

On US Interrogation (sadly I cannot find the SF field manual): http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18779prs20041207.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/torture_as_an_interrogation_te.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cnd-formica.html http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305I.shtml http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1227&id=893492006 On the US School of Americas: http://www.soaw.org/ On Secret US Prisons: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1237589,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22567 Now why is this important? Since the US keeps these prisons in secret locations which are never disclosed, the international red cross is never permitted to inspect them. Therefore, any sort of interrogation and torture technique used is carte blanche.

As it is, if I were a moderator, I'd either not give you any points or would mod you flamebait, because you're pretty clearly ignorant of Medieval Islamic civilization.

Spain, under the Moorish rule, was by far the most advanced state in western Europe, and its medical, mathematical and scholarly abilities were greater than that of Rome that had existed centuries before.

It was via Muslim scholars that a great deal of Classical Greek learning and philosophy was saved.

That wasn't bullshit. It was just flip-flopping.
According to Kerry, he was for the Tazering before he was against it.

We are going to experience cycles of warming and cooling, especially as water vapor (the most important greenhouse gas) and CO2 fluctuate. CO2 levels are actually very low now compared with normal planetary activity.

While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe. When a scientist such as Stephen Hawking warns "I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with boiling sulfuric acid," any reasonable person begins to fear for the future.

My surprise and shock was learning that past concentrations of carbon dioxide were much higher than they are today (indeed, limits so high as to be unreachable, assuming that we have hit peak oil), as revealed in the interview below:

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

I have learned that these past CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

An even more thorough refutation, specifically of An Inconvenient Truth, can be found here.

Let us see how many falsehoods or mistakes are in this description of the Miami Herald study. To begin, the Herald did four tests, not three. Bush won three of them, including by 1,665 votes (his official margin in Florida was 537 votes) under the standard of counting pretty much every ballot that had even a partial punch, the standard Gore wanted (though he only wanted it to be applied in heavily Democratic counties such as Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia).

The only one of the four tests that Gore won was using a standard of only counting ballots in which the intent was indisputable, and here Gore wins by 3 votes. This is the test that Krugman claimed was unrealistic! The Herald cautioned that this particular test result of a 3 vote win of 6 million statewide was inconclusive, and the outcome might have resulted from the subjective interpretation of the undervote ballots by its panel from a national accounting firm. So with the full statewide manual recount of the undervote, the Herald said Bush won 3 times, and the 4th set of results was indeterminate.
So Krugman gets the Miami Herald results completely WRONG!.

Here's one from CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

No, that's not the case at all. The initial invasion was quite "successful" in the same way you'd be successful if you tried to kick a crippled kid in the face. Largely it is due to the deeply dishonest and downright treasonous manner in which he sold what was, is and will remain nothing but a hare brained scheme for world domination as laid out in the 2000 PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses". That document even included the idea of misusing an attack on America to mislead the American people into the attack.
So, sorry, but you are dead fucking wrong about that. Some of us are actually informed and don't rely on the bullshit complicit US media. Nice job repeating idiotic wingnut talking points though. Do you get a gold star for that or something?

Uh, no, I'm dead fucking right. How many troops have we lost in Iraq? How many troops did we lose on D-Day? Better yet, how many did we lose TRAINING for D-Day? How many did we lose in Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the War of 1812? How long was the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WWII? When did we pull our troops out of those two countries?
The problem in Iraq is that they (Al Qaeda) smell victory? Why? Not because they are winning battles, but because everything they do, win or lose, is reported as an American defeat in the media outlets. People like you are helping. For that matter, let me quote you something from the author of 1984 and Animal Farm. Y

My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.

My main area of surprise and shock was learning that past concentrations of carbon dioxide were much higher than they are today, as revealed in the interview below:

RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota
JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

I have come to learn that these past carbon dioxide concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

I have also seen a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigous universities):

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

And I have also seen a growing political backlash against scientifically-unfounded runaway global warming panic:

Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

When I see interviews such as

It appears that we are well within tolerances of atmospheric co2:

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

However, this does not obviate the need for research into emergency cooling of the earth and much greater research into the behavior of the sun. It is well agreed that, even before the end of the main sequence (and expansion into a red giant), the sun will burn off our oceans:

As Earth's Sun has a mass of one solar mass, it is expected to become a red giant in about five billion years. It will become sufficiently large enough to engulf the current orbits of some of the solar system's inner planets, including Earth.[5][6][7] However, the gravitational pull of the Sun will have weakened by then due to its loss of mass, and all planets but Mercury will escape to a wider orbit. On the other hand, Earth's ability to carry life will be gone before the Sun gets brighter as its hydrogen supply becomes depleted. The extra solar energy will cause the oceans to evaporate to space, causing the Earth's atmosphere to become similar to Venus'.[8]

Eventually, cooling technology will be required. Exactly when this will be is anybody's guess (because our understanding of Solar processes is so poor - we spend all our money driving toy cars around on Mars). We should start on it now.

Yeah, you guessed it: DA Mike Nifong's Hunt for the Great White Defendants in the Duke Lacrosse Frame-Up is a no-show. You see, the long-running pattern of hate crime hoaxes victimizing white male college students is nothing compared to, say, #8 on Lithwick's List, the Bush Administration "Slagging the Media."

In recent news, the hoax continues to implode. Nifong dropped the rape charges but is pressing on with other felony charges. Meanwhile, the North Carolina State Bar is investigating Nifong for ethics violations. And now the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys has asked him to recuse himself from the case.

The American Thinker has the link to what I believe is the actual report being discussed. It's always nice to be able to get to the actual source material, instead of reading what someone else is telling you it contains.

As Jonathan Adler wrote in the Washington Times on July 27, 1994:

"Concurrent with Mr. Lancaster's attack on Mr. Singer, Mr. Gore himself led a similar effort to discredit the respected scientist. Mr. Gore reportedly contacted 60 Minutes and Nightline to do stories on Mr. Singer and other opponents of Mr. Gore's environmental policies. The stories were designed to undermine the opposition by suggesting that only raving ideologues and corporate mouthpieces could challenge Mr. Gore's green gospel. The strategy backfired. When Nightline did the story, it exposed the vice president's machinations and compared his activities to Lysenkoism: The Stalinist politicization of science in the former Soviet Union."

In fact, the 2/24/94 Nightline edition which Adler refers to included a segment-end wherein the host, Ted Koppel, said (jaw-agape emphasis mine):

"There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis."

.......

In an interview with Mike Miliard of The Phoenix, he recalled:

"Gore would run star-chamber hearings and invite the heads of funding agencies while he would try to get scientists [who doubted climate change's severity] to recant. . . . Everyone in the eld knows [that] when the funding went up to $2 billion a year under Bush the elder, that money didn't come because people thought climate was a wonderful thing. It came because of alarm."

Lindzen himself explains how "global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" in his 4/12/06 article, "Climate of Fear":

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

So, effectively, Gore's intimidation tactics over the course of the last decade and a half have achieved his desired goal through a menacing combination of politics, words and financial control. At a glance, it would certainly appear that a significant number of American scientists have been molded into obedient, PC puppets.

.....

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do agree that Mr. Gore along along with a myriad of other politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are men of principle. The one principle they cherish and have indeed adopted as their own was first espoused by H.L. Mencken:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed----and hence clamorous to be led to safety----by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I studied and researched global warming as a student some 12 years before Al Gore discovered it. At least then, the scientists and researchers could admit that their results were inconclusive or even ran counter to conventional wisdom in this arena without fear of losing their funding. It was, simply, because it was not an emotional politicized panic button issue the way it is today.

As

I am not the only one. Try a Google search on "New York Times" and "treason". I am going to enjoy watching them twist in the wind. Whose side are you on?

Depends on why he's in jail...

Sigh... once again... the first amendment does not protect your right to hear what you want, but other people's right to say what you don't want to hear.

Censorship in any form is really touchy. Not hearing each side of an argument is rediculous, especially when labeling one side "racist" by default.

Like this, for instance (warning - inflaming material ahead.) There is evidence in the Holy Quran that (among other sexism) slavery of women is allowed, and sex outside of the marriage with any woman who is deemed a slave is acceptable.

By today's standards this is attrocious - slavery alone, aside from deeming someone sexual property - and even mentioning that this exists in the Quran is considered by many a racist tirade the effort of which is simply to put down a race of people or Islam as a whole.

But the fact is, by censoring me, you're closing your eyes to simple fact, and branding me a racist for believing that Islam could support such acts in an effort to discredit Islam.

Of course, the Quran doesn't say anything about forcing one's self on slave women and the article I've linked to proports that the Quran supports rape in an attempt to show how Christianity is better. It does show some support or understanding of the times that slavery exists... The debate is unsolvable, but by censoring one side, you're closing the argument or debate all together.

And that, my friends, is unacceptable in a free society. The exchange of ideas cannot be the exchange of "acceptable" ideas, or free society is no longer free.

And so I can be modded down, but hearing what you don't want to hear is no reason to censor anyone.