Fact remains FBI director came on to the television as stated that if this was _anybody else_ they would have been prosecuted. Facts are facts. Rules for us and rules for wing nut Democrat imbeciles. Come the revolution.
TRUMP 2016
FBI director Comey said he could find no previous precedent for prosecuting Clinton under these statutes. Former SOS's Powell and Rice although they didn't have their own email servers did use G-mail or other external email sites for similar messages and yet they weren't prosecuted. I guess if your ideology is strong enough you see what you want to see instead of reality.
If most humans were more rational then governance would take care of itself. But trying to force rationality on a populace that is largely driven by emotion and ideology would be a disaster. Maybe the closest example of a nation ruled by science would be China where the government is largely run by technocrats who have demonstrated a certain level of competence before being elevated. Few of us in the USA would care to live under that government.
Science informs us about the real world but many areas of science important to governance such as economics and sociology are not very well settled. I'm not convinced a rational government could do any better than the current government in those areas.
You're thinking about the Federal Government managing broadband but it's really relatively small local utility districts similar to electrical coops (and maybe the electric coops themselves since they own the poles) that should manage this. Most coops like this serve their customers well since their boards are composed of local members of the coops and they're not out to make a profit. Their whole reason for being is to serve their customers.
I'm thinking your post is tongue-in-cheek but I'll respond anyway. Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when an ultraviolet photon hits an O2 molecule splitting it to 2 oxygen atoms that then combine with another O2 molecule to produce O3. This is a process that has gone on for billions of years ever since there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere.
I bought a low flow toilet that was recommended by Consumer Reports and I'm completely satisfied with it. It hasn't plugged once in 3 years of use compared to the old full flow toilet it replaced which plugged at least once a month. Yes, it wasn't the least expensive toilet I could have got (around $250) but it was worth it. The lesson is get a good quality toilet and it will serve you well.
It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?
If the atmosphere were totally still CFCs would settle into the lower atmosphere. But the atmosphere is a rather turbulent place and it has no problem keeping keeping CFCs and other heavier than average molecules well mixed.
Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.
What you say is true. But it's also true that CFCs increase the rate at which ozone is destroyed causing a lower equilibrium point unless the rate of creation goes up somehow.
since it takes control from those of us that want to promote AGW.
Not in the least. It is a good example of the world coming together and doing something effective about a problem, exactly what we should be doing more of in regard to AGW as well.
Ah, but ozone in the stratosphere does make the surface of the Earth cooler because it intercepts ultraviolet radiation before it reaches the troposphere.
Nicely said. The Founding Fathers did not want to have a standing Army. That's why they put into the Constitution that funding for an army had to be reauthorized every 2 years. (I think that isn't true of the Navy thought). Most lovers of the 2nd Amendment just ignore its first clause, you know the part about "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
If it ever becomes an existential threat it's because we spend ourselves into bankruptcy playing whack-a-mole in response to the attacks. Do you seriously think ISIS or Al-Qaeda will ever grow strong enough to directly invade any western nations?
And yet in the grand scheme of things Islamic terrorism amounts to practically nothing. It's like a mosquito bite or maybe a bee sting to the body politic. It's never going to be an existential threat. What percentages of immigrants to the USA have ever carried out a terrorist act? I'd bet it's well under 1%. In a cold blooded analysis what is the real cost/benefit of all of the spending on protectionism? You can't eliminate all risk from life so you can live your life in fear or live your life with optimism. Which do you want to do?
What I'm quite confident about is that as long as anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures will continue to rise, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the oceans will continue to acidify. That's just basic physics. After that it gets more murky because we don't have any good analog to look to to understand what will happen.
In other words, current extreme years. There will be more years than just 2015 and 2016.
Yes, and with the PDO returning to a positive phase there's a chance we will see warming like we had in the 1980s and 1990s rather than the warming of the 2000s.
Anything can be true when you're ignorant. I note that sea level may be rising faster than some predictions, but not faster than other predictions.
James Hansen's possibility of large sea level rises is predicated on the possibility of a sudden collapse of a large area of ice, probably in the West Antarctic. The instability there is well documented. There are several places such as the Pine Island Glacier where the land drops away as you go inland where ocean water can get under the ice and undermine it. That doesn't mean it's going to happen but it's also not something you can say won't happen.
You need to take "Anything can be true when you're ignorant" and apply it to yourself.
Temperature rise is at the low end of those "2 sigma" predictions, consistent with a lower than hyped temperature forcing from CO2.
2015 and 2016 (once the final numbers are in) are solidly in the middle of the 2 sigma predictions. Over short time periods natural variability can overwhelm the signal of global warming but in the long run (30 years or longer) the signal of global warming wins.
As to sea level rise, I don't buy that it is "greater than predicted". For example, we have this prediction [slate.com] from James Hansen:
My perception of the Hansen paper was that it's impossible to rule out large non-linear changes in sea level rise due to ice sheet dynamics that we don't understand too well, not that it would absolutely happen. Many other scientists have made more linear predictions. The future will tell. Meanwhile sea level is rising faster than earlier linear predictions so far.
I listened to Bernie Sanders for an hour nearly every Friday for years on the Thom Hartmann show so I think I know him pretty well. Of course Bernie is an idealist but he's also a pragmatic politician willing to take a partial victory to advance his cause. Doing anything that gives Trump a better chance of winning will not do that. He has got enough support to name several people to the Democratic Platform Committee and dragged Hillary to the left some. If he's inspired some of his followers to follow in his footsteps he has done a lot to advance his cause and made a small change to the world. He's not going to blow that all up just for the sake of personal pride or being a rigid idealist.
Temperature rises have been within the 2 sigma range of temperature predictions, sea level rise has generally been greater than predicted. Maybe you can give some specific examples.
I'll just note here that a) climate research also is failing to predict the future,...
Or you just don't know enough to properly judge how well predictions by climate scientists are doing. (That's probably mostly because you fail to understand the time scales the scientists put on their predictions.) So far from my perspective most of the predictions are pretty good.
The names of registered voters, their party registration and whether they voted in an election is already publicly available information. The rest of what was listed in the story is just a matter of leg work that anyone can do if they want to. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
I won't vote for Crooked Hillary. I haven't ruled out voting for Trump, but he's not doing a whole lot to impress me at the moment.
The right wing in this country has spent nearly 25 years trying to vilify the Clintons. They've spent probably well over $100 million in Federal money between the GWB administration and the R's in Congress investigating them. And what do they have to show for it? Nada, just a lot of innuendo.
I'm not saying Hillary is a perfect person and she wasn't my first choice for President but she's not the evil person so many are trying to make her out to be either.
All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.
Of course Bernie will support Hillary Clinton because he thinks preventing Trump (or any Republican) from becoming President is the most important thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact remains FBI director came on to the television as stated that if this was _anybody else_ they would have been prosecuted. Facts are facts. Rules for us and rules for wing nut Democrat imbeciles. Come the revolution.
TRUMP 2016
FBI director Comey said he could find no previous precedent for prosecuting Clinton under these statutes. Former SOS's Powell and Rice although they didn't have their own email servers did use G-mail or other external email sites for similar messages and yet they weren't prosecuted. I guess if your ideology is strong enough you see what you want to see instead of reality.
If most humans were more rational then governance would take care of itself. But trying to force rationality on a populace that is largely driven by emotion and ideology would be a disaster. Maybe the closest example of a nation ruled by science would be China where the government is largely run by technocrats who have demonstrated a certain level of competence before being elevated. Few of us in the USA would care to live under that government.
Science informs us about the real world but many areas of science important to governance such as economics and sociology are not very well settled. I'm not convinced a rational government could do any better than the current government in those areas.
You're thinking about the Federal Government managing broadband but it's really relatively small local utility districts similar to electrical coops (and maybe the electric coops themselves since they own the poles) that should manage this. Most coops like this serve their customers well since their boards are composed of local members of the coops and they're not out to make a profit. Their whole reason for being is to serve their customers.
I'm thinking your post is tongue-in-cheek but I'll respond anyway. Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when an ultraviolet photon hits an O2 molecule splitting it to 2 oxygen atoms that then combine with another O2 molecule to produce O3. This is a process that has gone on for billions of years ever since there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere.
I bought a low flow toilet that was recommended by Consumer Reports and I'm completely satisfied with it. It hasn't plugged once in 3 years of use compared to the old full flow toilet it replaced which plugged at least once a month. Yes, it wasn't the least expensive toilet I could have got (around $250) but it was worth it. The lesson is get a good quality toilet and it will serve you well.
It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?
If the atmosphere were totally still CFCs would settle into the lower atmosphere. But the atmosphere is a rather turbulent place and it has no problem keeping keeping CFCs and other heavier than average molecules well mixed.
Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.
What you say is true. But it's also true that CFCs increase the rate at which ozone is destroyed causing a lower equilibrium point unless the rate of creation goes up somehow.
since it takes control from those of us that want to promote AGW.
Not in the least. It is a good example of the world coming together and doing something effective about a problem, exactly what we should be doing more of in regard to AGW as well.
Ah, but ozone in the stratosphere does make the surface of the Earth cooler because it intercepts ultraviolet radiation before it reaches the troposphere.
Nicely said. The Founding Fathers did not want to have a standing Army. That's why they put into the Constitution that funding for an army had to be reauthorized every 2 years. (I think that isn't true of the Navy thought). Most lovers of the 2nd Amendment just ignore its first clause, you know the part about "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
If it ever becomes an existential threat it's because we spend ourselves into bankruptcy playing whack-a-mole in response to the attacks. Do you seriously think ISIS or Al-Qaeda will ever grow strong enough to directly invade any western nations?
And yet in the grand scheme of things Islamic terrorism amounts to practically nothing. It's like a mosquito bite or maybe a bee sting to the body politic. It's never going to be an existential threat. What percentages of immigrants to the USA have ever carried out a terrorist act? I'd bet it's well under 1%. In a cold blooded analysis what is the real cost/benefit of all of the spending on protectionism? You can't eliminate all risk from life so you can live your life in fear or live your life with optimism. Which do you want to do?
What I'm quite confident about is that as long as anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures will continue to rise, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the oceans will continue to acidify. That's just basic physics. After that it gets more murky because we don't have any good analog to look to to understand what will happen.
You're pretty confident about your conclusions. I think scientists have a better chance of being right. Time will tell.
All the king's horses and and all the king's men won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Here's a paper on the potential instability of several glaciers in West Antarctica: Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011.
In other words, current extreme years. There will be more years than just 2015 and 2016.
Yes, and with the PDO returning to a positive phase there's a chance we will see warming like we had in the 1980s and 1990s rather than the warming of the 2000s.
Anything can be true when you're ignorant. I note that sea level may be rising faster than some predictions, but not faster than other predictions.
James Hansen's possibility of large sea level rises is predicated on the possibility of a sudden collapse of a large area of ice, probably in the West Antarctic. The instability there is well documented. There are several places such as the Pine Island Glacier where the land drops away as you go inland where ocean water can get under the ice and undermine it. That doesn't mean it's going to happen but it's also not something you can say won't happen.
You need to take "Anything can be true when you're ignorant" and apply it to yourself.
Temperature rise is at the low end of those "2 sigma" predictions, consistent with a lower than hyped temperature forcing from CO2.
2015 and 2016 (once the final numbers are in) are solidly in the middle of the 2 sigma predictions. Over short time periods natural variability can overwhelm the signal of global warming but in the long run (30 years or longer) the signal of global warming wins.
As to sea level rise, I don't buy that it is "greater than predicted". For example, we have this prediction [slate.com] from James Hansen:
My perception of the Hansen paper was that it's impossible to rule out large non-linear changes in sea level rise due to ice sheet dynamics that we don't understand too well, not that it would absolutely happen. Many other scientists have made more linear predictions. The future will tell. Meanwhile sea level is rising faster than earlier linear predictions so far.
Of course Gore won the popular vote in 2000. He just lost in the Electoral College.
I listened to Bernie Sanders for an hour nearly every Friday for years on the Thom Hartmann show so I think I know him pretty well. Of course Bernie is an idealist but he's also a pragmatic politician willing to take a partial victory to advance his cause. Doing anything that gives Trump a better chance of winning will not do that. He has got enough support to name several people to the Democratic Platform Committee and dragged Hillary to the left some. If he's inspired some of his followers to follow in his footsteps he has done a lot to advance his cause and made a small change to the world. He's not going to blow that all up just for the sake of personal pride or being a rigid idealist.
Temperature rises have been within the 2 sigma range of temperature predictions, sea level rise has generally been greater than predicted. Maybe you can give some specific examples.
I'll just note here that a) climate research also is failing to predict the future, ...
Or you just don't know enough to properly judge how well predictions by climate scientists are doing. (That's probably mostly because you fail to understand the time scales the scientists put on their predictions.) So far from my perspective most of the predictions are pretty good.
The names of registered voters, their party registration and whether they voted in an election is already publicly available information. The rest of what was listed in the story is just a matter of leg work that anyone can do if they want to. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
I won't vote for Crooked Hillary. I haven't ruled out voting for Trump, but he's not doing a whole lot to impress me at the moment.
The right wing in this country has spent nearly 25 years trying to vilify the Clintons. They've spent probably well over $100 million in Federal money between the GWB administration and the R's in Congress investigating them. And what do they have to show for it? Nada, just a lot of innuendo.
I'm not saying Hillary is a perfect person and she wasn't my first choice for President but she's not the evil person so many are trying to make her out to be either.
Bernie Sanders is about to bow out.
All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.
Of course Bernie will support Hillary Clinton because he thinks preventing Trump (or any Republican) from becoming President is the most important thing.