*Salutes* Proud members of the pro-reality zealots army... ATTEENNNNHUT ! Reeeeccciiitttteee the oath !
I shall not believe that which has no evidence. I shall accept evidence that go against my previously held beliefs. I shall not let my economic or moral ideals trump evidence based scientific conclusions. I shall not use fallacies to attempt to deceive audiences for profit or political gain. I shall confront and fight enemies of truth, both foreign and domestic, where-ever I find them.
When the international symbol of your country (which is odd since there are six statues of liberty and only one is in America) declares an belief system that half the country rejects- it clearly doesn't belong there.
By the way - good luck with Trump changing the demographic path through immigration reform - it has a near-zero chance of working. Firstly because it isn't immigration that is changing the demographics. Immigration with Mexico has been negative for years, if anything, the wall will ACCELERATE the pace of the demographic change by making it harder for people to go TO Mexico (who outnumber those coming from Mexico). The things that ARE driving the demographic change is primarily different birth rates, which is directly correlated with income and education levels - Trump policies are likely to exacerbate those inequalities which would ALSO increase the rate of change if it does.
If Trump does any of the things he campaigned on - it would accelerate the demographic changes. A lot of the change for the next election is American born kids by the way, who weren't of voting age in this election but will be then. Trump may have gotten the most social conservative Hispanics but youth social conservatism is basically non-existent - and the Hispanic and black populations are getting younger (unlike their white counterparts) so the social conservative parts of those populations are shrinking.
Now in theory you could mean that by favoring white immigrants Trump could whiteify the country so much that it would change the picture. There are two problems though. Firstly - the very same super burocratic system that has caused so many imigrants to be undocumented will also harm his plan: no way he can get a significant number of white people AND get them to be eiligible to vote by 2020. Not unless he radically improves the greencard process - which would benefit the poor and people like Hispanics and Muslims as well - and far moreso than it would benefit whites. The second problem is trhat he won't be able to find whites who would vote for him. Where would he get them from ? The GOP isn't a whites-only party, it's an AMERICAN whites only party. Nowhere else in the world are white people uneducated and racist enough to vote for him. Even in France Marine Le Pen didn't become a serious contended in politics until she massively reduced the racism of the party (indeed firing anybody in the party who makes a racist comment as official policy). She had to go to the center - somethign Trump never did. The whites of the rest of the planet are appalled by Trump, his only support came from pockets of white supremacists - but they are extremely rare outside the US. If he imports every white South African who longs for the days of appartheid he would make no dent in the numbers. Add every white supremacist in Europe, Australia and New Zeeland, hell import every person on the planet outside the USA who supported him and it's still not enough - there just wasn't any significant such group of people ! For once, American exceptionalism was right. You are the WORST country on earth in this regard, nowhere else is this bad anymore. For once, you really are exceptional - and it doesn't bode well for this plan.
Finally - this is all academic since Trump can't pass any of those laws and if he did the supreme court - no matter how stacked - WILL throw it out since it would be unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that immigration laws cannot violate any other constitutional right. So sorry, you can't keep out Muslim refugees - that violates the first amendment. You can't favour white immigrants - that violates several amendments. And the court, like it's counterparts around the world, has a long history of judging a law by it's effects -not just its words. If the law in PRACTISE discriminates on religion or race it is unconstitutional - even if neither is mentioned anywhere in it, you can't get around the constitution by writing a law that pretends to be about something else when that some
So you dismiss the ONLY information (even though COROBORATED eyewitnesses are MUCH more reliable)... and instead accept the account of the person with every incentive to lie ?
And that is how the police have shot 1039 unarmed black men in America in 2016 alone. That's almost 3 a day. And it's a list that includes way too many 12 year old boys with toys who were never a threat to anybody.
I would believe the right was in any way sincere about anything they say (And not just being a bunch of racist fucks) if the NRA had actually spoken out about the ONLY example in the entirety of the Obama administration's tenure where a gun right was actually violated. But it didn't matter because it was a black guy who was shot for owning a legal gun which he didn't in any way threaten the police with, and we have video proving he did nothing wrong. The NRA never even made a public statement about the incident. They glorify white guys who carry loaded AR15's into restaurants to scare children - but the one time somebody was actually harmed by a government official for exercising his second amendment rights they pretended it never happened. Black people aren't supposed to have the right to bear arms I guess ?
>Michael Brown shot in cold blood by a cop (Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun and charged at him) No he didn't. And even if he had it wouldn't mean anything. You can't disprove a pattern by claiming (truthfully or not) that one example doesn't fit the pattern. You may have had a point if there wasn't Tamir Rice (cop acquitted), If the NRA had even MENTIONED Philando Castile, if there was no Eric Garner, of if the list of unarmed black men killed by US police this year alone was not currently at 1039 - that's an average of more than 3 a day, every day.
>Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome (Trump's campaign considered legal challenges just like Gore did in 2000) He said he might not accept it. He SAID he would "keep you suspense". Oh, right, I forgot - it's a media smear if we quote him right ? You don't GET to consider legal challenges until AFTER an election. Even if you DO decide to raise one you STILL have to accept the results BEFORE you do. A legal challenge is a claim that the published result is not the ACTUAL result - it's is NOT a failure to ACCEPT the result - it's merely a quibble about what the result is. There's a massive difference.
> Hackers caused Trump to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania A small number of people said that, had good reasons for saying that - which were trumped by people with more expertise pointing out something they miss. There's no "hate" there. Are citizens now no longer allowed to question whether voting machines are accurate ? Because people have been doing that on/. ever since I started reading this site in the previous century. We've had headlines over concerns that Diebold machines cheat in every election since 2000 ! Now all of a sudden asking if voting machines are trustworthy is 'hate' ?
>2016 is the hottest year on record It is, your claim to the contrary is a lie. You are either a sucker or a liar yourself. Science doesn't stop being true because you don't like it.
> Trump's economic plans to protect American workers were racist Nobody said that. We said his immigration plans and comments about refugees were racist. Well actually somebody DID say his economic plans were racist, but that only happened once, Friday - never before, and the person who said it was Bernie Sanders.
>Trump's economic plans were virtually identical to those of Bernie Sanders Only on the surface, go read Bernies recent speech about them - and how he clarifies what the differences are and why those differences are extremely important. Indeed - HE says that THOSE differences makes Trump's version racist. You can't hold similarity to Bernie's plans up as proof he isn't racist when Bernie himself has pointed out racist differences in the plans. The plans also have, in reality, almost nothing in common anyway. Taking an example. Both claim to want to invest heavily in infrastructure. Sounds the same right ? Wrong, because HOW they want to do it has nothing in common. Bernie wanted to spend federal dollars fixing the infrastructure most in need of repairs - that would be the infrastructure in poor neighbourhoods and cities where there isn't any profit to be made and the local communities cannot afford to fund the upgrades themselves. Trump wants to set up an incentive scheme to encourage private companies to do infrastructure upgrade projects as for profit business ventures for tax breaks: that means they will only upgrade it where they can make money. In the wealthy neighbourhoods where the people can afford price hikes to pay them (and where the need for upgrades is smaller meaning they can spend less. While both would create jobs Bernie would have created a lot more, and his projects would have helped people like those in Flint Michigan. When you're only helping already rich, mostly white, suburbs due to the structure of your plan: that's pretty much the definition of a racist program. FDR had the same problem, many structures of the new deal excluded black people and a
Quoting the GP: "The fraud is (mostly) not coming from scientists. But politicians are politicians"
Clearly the person I was responding to was making that claim - and I was showing that in light of his OWN claim he is being deceptive and trying to pretend the IPCC is not filled with scientists - the very people he just called mostly honest.
Trump claimed that 'Mexico does not send us their best'. Forgetting his racist claims about the people who emigrate from Mexico to America - there is some truth to that part, America does mostly get Mexico's poor and struggling. Or to put it another way - they get exactly the people they invited ! The plaque on the statue of liberty reads: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!". Sounds like a pretty good description of the refugees and immigrants Trump is so opposed to. Which raises the point: if you seriously believe that Trump's approach to immigration is correct - then you should be petitioning to have the statue returned to France because America clearly neither deserves nor wants it anymore.
The word 'explosion' literally implies something that grows bigger - the common phrase 'blow up' is actually pretty key to what is, or is not, an explosion. Your definition would mean implosions are also explosions !
And yes, I am being pedantic about terminology since my entire point is that the risk of explosions is far more limited. I never said there can't be other risks or they couldn't be even worse, I am open to that suggestion - but that's another problem and requires different solutions to address. Explosions create unique and specific issues that make them dangerous. Very few people have ever been killed by an explosion per se. It takes a MASSIVE explosion for the shockware to actually injure people. The shockwave from a hand-grenade is practically harmless even if you're on top of it. May break a few ribs. But that rapid-expansion bit means explosions have shrapnel, and that is the much bigger risk. Most people who die in explosions are killed by shrapnel. An arc-flash doesn't have shrapnel. Sure it could burn you - but it isn't going to sever your arteries.
That's what I meant. To build in orbit you have to GET in orbit. That means going through atmosphere. Even if you build from materials in orbit - you would still need to get the pilot there. I suppose you could conceivably build an unmanned craft entirely in orbit... but you would still need to get the construction tools into orbit and that, again, requires going through the atmosphere.
An explosion is defined as a rapid energetic gaseous expansion. Usually due to a high energy chemical reaction but disturbing a superheated liquid would count too. Arc flash is... not that. Well maybe if its energetic enough to plasmafy the air but I doubt there is any reason to put that much energy in your pocket.
We're fanatics ? Because we fear that a fascist may act like a fascist and create a dictatorship - or start a nuclear war, both of which would prevent another election from happening.
How are WE the fanatics ? We're not suggesting it SHOULD be the last election - we're trying to fight to make sure it WON'T be.
Actually, this would likely be a LOT safer than the exploding batteries, exactly because a capacitor is a much simpler device. Critically - it needs no chemically volatile liquids. Batteries are filled with highly reactive chemicals - they have to be to store energy in the form of lose ions. Lose ions only exist if the chemical is highly reactive. Highly reactive == potentially explosive.
But a capacity is made of solid, non-moving parts - I actually can't see a scenario where it could explode. A huge charge with a short could possibly cause a great deal of heat, and some major sparks which could set OTHER things on fire, but I can't see a scenario where a capacitor would burn . There's no reason to put any flammable material whatsoever in one.
Maybe somebody with more knowledge than me can show that these types contain some highly reactive/flammable materials and that this is important to their operation but I wouldn't bet on.
>No, I expect you to believe that they are very good at making money. If they honestly believe that there are alternatives that can conceivably compete with their existing business then they are going to invest in it, not try to kill it off.
And throw away billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars of past investments while those are still making money ? Only a complete fucking moron would do that. Apparently YOU would - and that explains why you can't understand why they won't.
Beaver monthly magazine ? In my teen years, before the internet, I used to "read" those (and learned many tricks to acquire them while not being legally of age to buy them).
>And finally, other members of the government have suggested this move in the past, including Ted Cruz. Yes, it's often and exclusively suggested by republicans who deny climate change who hate that the scientists keep telling the public they are lying. It's a scam. Take the money from NASA while at the SAME TIME cutting funding of NOAA - and thus you can shut up all those annoying scientists. Seriously Ted Cruz ? One of the least honest and most horrible people to ever hold power in the USA ? A man with so little respect for individual liberty that when a wrongfully convicted prisoner in Texas proved his innocense beyond all doubt AND the real criminal was caught - he fought (as state atorney general at the time) in court to try and convince the judge NOT to let the innocent man go and instead force him to finish the remaining 6 years of the 10 year sentence he should never have gotten. All while AT THE SAME TIME - leading the prosecution of the actual criminal, he was quite happy to have two people serve time for a crime that only one had committed. This is your example of a sane and trustworthy politician ?
I notice he has not replied. How odd. You would think NASA making such a statement would be big news. There'd be a press release and such - he'd be able to link us to at least one newspaper report, or a scientific paper that stated what the margin is and at least some sort of credible assesment that this margin is "huge" (as opposed to his own subjective interpretation of a number he didn't [want to] understand) and sure. And surely if it invalidated any of their results - then there WOULD be studies showing this. The oil industry is spending hundreds of millions on anti-climate-change propaganda, they would surely be able to offer a few million in a nice grant to any scientist who could do so. I mean - the deniers always tell us scientists publish climate change articles to get money... if they are so greedy, how come the oil companies can't seem to buy any that will write a decent paper and reveal the 'truth' ?
Slashdot Mirror
And was almost certainly black.
*Salutes* ... ATTEENNNNHUT !
Proud members of the pro-reality zealots army
Reeeeccciiitttteee the oath !
I shall not believe that which has no evidence.
I shall accept evidence that go against my previously held beliefs.
I shall not let my economic or moral ideals trump evidence based scientific conclusions.
I shall not use fallacies to attempt to deceive audiences for profit or political gain.
I shall confront and fight enemies of truth, both foreign and domestic, where-ever I find them.
When the international symbol of your country (which is odd since there are six statues of liberty and only one is in America) declares an belief system that half the country rejects- it clearly doesn't belong there.
By the way - good luck with Trump changing the demographic path through immigration reform - it has a near-zero chance of working. Firstly because it isn't immigration that is changing the demographics. Immigration with Mexico has been negative for years, if anything, the wall will ACCELERATE the pace of the demographic change by making it harder for people to go TO Mexico (who outnumber those coming from Mexico).
The things that ARE driving the demographic change is primarily different birth rates, which is directly correlated with income and education levels - Trump policies are likely to exacerbate those inequalities which would ALSO increase the rate of change if it does.
If Trump does any of the things he campaigned on - it would accelerate the demographic changes. A lot of the change for the next election is American born kids by the way, who weren't of voting age in this election but will be then. Trump may have gotten the most social conservative Hispanics but youth social conservatism is basically non-existent - and the Hispanic and black populations are getting younger (unlike their white counterparts) so the social conservative parts of those populations are shrinking.
Now in theory you could mean that by favoring white immigrants Trump could whiteify the country so much that it would change the picture. There are two problems though. Firstly - the very same super burocratic system that has caused so many imigrants to be undocumented will also harm his plan: no way he can get a significant number of white people AND get them to be eiligible to vote by 2020. Not unless he radically improves the greencard process - which would benefit the poor and people like Hispanics and Muslims as well - and far moreso than it would benefit whites. The second problem is trhat he won't be able to find whites who would vote for him. Where would he get them from ?
The GOP isn't a whites-only party, it's an AMERICAN whites only party.
Nowhere else in the world are white people uneducated and racist enough to vote for him. Even in France Marine Le Pen didn't become a serious contended in politics until she massively reduced the racism of the party (indeed firing anybody in the party who makes a racist comment as official policy). She had to go to the center - somethign Trump never did.
The whites of the rest of the planet are appalled by Trump, his only support came from pockets of white supremacists - but they are extremely rare outside the US. If he imports every white South African who longs for the days of appartheid he would make no dent in the numbers. Add every white supremacist in Europe, Australia and New Zeeland, hell import every person on the planet outside the USA who supported him and it's still not enough - there just wasn't any significant such group of people !
For once, American exceptionalism was right. You are the WORST country on earth in this regard, nowhere else is this bad anymore. For once, you really are exceptional - and it doesn't bode well for this plan.
Finally - this is all academic since Trump can't pass any of those laws and if he did the supreme court - no matter how stacked - WILL throw it out since it would be unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that immigration laws cannot violate any other constitutional right. So sorry, you can't keep out Muslim refugees - that violates the first amendment. You can't favour white immigrants - that violates several amendments.
And the court, like it's counterparts around the world, has a long history of judging a law by it's effects -not just its words. If the law in PRACTISE discriminates on religion or race it is unconstitutional - even if neither is mentioned anywhere in it, you can't get around the constitution by writing a law that pretends to be about something else when that some
So you dismiss the ONLY information (even though COROBORATED eyewitnesses are MUCH more reliable) ... and instead accept the account of the person with every incentive to lie ?
And that is how the police have shot 1039 unarmed black men in America in 2016 alone. That's almost 3 a day. And it's a list that includes way too many 12 year old boys with toys who were never a threat to anybody.
I would believe the right was in any way sincere about anything they say (And not just being a bunch of racist fucks) if the NRA had actually spoken out about the ONLY example in the entirety of the Obama administration's tenure where a gun right was actually violated. But it didn't matter because it was a black guy who was shot for owning a legal gun which he didn't in any way threaten the police with, and we have video proving he did nothing wrong. The NRA never even made a public statement about the incident.
They glorify white guys who carry loaded AR15's into restaurants to scare children - but the one time somebody was actually harmed by a government official for exercising his second amendment rights they pretended it never happened. Black people aren't supposed to have the right to bear arms I guess ?
>Michael Brown shot in cold blood by a cop (Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun and charged at him)
No he didn't. And even if he had it wouldn't mean anything. You can't disprove a pattern by claiming (truthfully or not) that one example doesn't fit the pattern. You may have had a point if there wasn't Tamir Rice (cop acquitted), If the NRA had even MENTIONED Philando Castile, if there was no Eric Garner, of if the list of unarmed black men killed by US police this year alone was not currently at 1039 - that's an average of more than 3 a day, every day.
>Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome (Trump's campaign considered legal challenges just like Gore did in 2000)
He said he might not accept it. He SAID he would "keep you suspense". Oh, right, I forgot - it's a media smear if we quote him right ? You don't GET to consider legal challenges until AFTER an election. Even if you DO decide to raise one you STILL have to accept the results BEFORE you do. A legal challenge is a claim that the published result is not the ACTUAL result - it's is NOT a failure to ACCEPT the result - it's merely a quibble about what the result is. There's a massive difference.
> Hackers caused Trump to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania /. ever since I started reading this site in the previous century. We've had headlines over concerns that Diebold machines cheat in every election since 2000 ! Now all of a sudden asking if voting machines are trustworthy is 'hate' ?
A small number of people said that, had good reasons for saying that - which were trumped by people with more expertise pointing out something they miss. There's no "hate" there. Are citizens now no longer allowed to question whether voting machines are accurate ? Because people have been doing that on
>2016 is the hottest year on record
It is, your claim to the contrary is a lie. You are either a sucker or a liar yourself. Science doesn't stop being true because you don't like it.
> Trump's economic plans to protect American workers were racist
Nobody said that. We said his immigration plans and comments about refugees were racist. Well actually somebody DID say his economic plans were racist, but that only happened once, Friday - never before, and the person who said it was Bernie Sanders.
>Trump's economic plans were virtually identical to those of Bernie Sanders
Only on the surface, go read Bernies recent speech about them - and how he clarifies what the differences are and why those differences are extremely important. Indeed - HE says that THOSE differences makes Trump's version racist.
You can't hold similarity to Bernie's plans up as proof he isn't racist when Bernie himself has pointed out racist differences in the plans. The plans also have, in reality, almost nothing in common anyway. Taking an example. Both claim to want to invest heavily in infrastructure. Sounds the same right ? Wrong, because HOW they want to do it has nothing in common.
Bernie wanted to spend federal dollars fixing the infrastructure most in need of repairs - that would be the infrastructure in poor neighbourhoods and cities where there isn't any profit to be made and the local communities cannot afford to fund the upgrades themselves.
Trump wants to set up an incentive scheme to encourage private companies to do infrastructure upgrade projects as for profit business ventures for tax breaks: that means they will only upgrade it where they can make money. In the wealthy neighbourhoods where the people can afford price hikes to pay them (and where the need for upgrades is smaller meaning they can spend less.
While both would create jobs Bernie would have created a lot more, and his projects would have helped people like those in Flint Michigan. When you're only helping already rich, mostly white, suburbs due to the structure of your plan: that's pretty much the definition of a racist program. FDR had the same problem, many structures of the new deal excluded black people and a
Quoting the GP:
"The fraud is (mostly) not coming from scientists. But politicians are politicians"
Clearly the person I was responding to was making that claim - and I was showing that in light of his OWN claim he is being deceptive and trying to pretend the IPCC is not filled with scientists - the very people he just called mostly honest.
Trump claimed that 'Mexico does not send us their best'. Forgetting his racist claims about the people who emigrate from Mexico to America - there is some truth to that part, America does mostly get Mexico's poor and struggling. Or to put it another way - they get exactly the people they invited ! The plaque on the statue of liberty reads: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!". Sounds like a pretty good description of the refugees and immigrants Trump is so opposed to. Which raises the point: if you seriously believe that Trump's approach to immigration is correct - then you should be petitioning to have the statue returned to France because America clearly neither deserves nor wants it anymore.
The word 'explosion' literally implies something that grows bigger - the common phrase 'blow up' is actually pretty key to what is, or is not, an explosion. Your definition would mean implosions are also explosions !
And yes, I am being pedantic about terminology since my entire point is that the risk of explosions is far more limited. I never said there can't be other risks or they couldn't be even worse, I am open to that suggestion - but that's another problem and requires different solutions to address.
Explosions create unique and specific issues that make them dangerous. Very few people have ever been killed by an explosion per se. It takes a MASSIVE explosion for the shockware to actually injure people. The shockwave from a hand-grenade is practically harmless even if you're on top of it. May break a few ribs. But that rapid-expansion bit means explosions have shrapnel, and that is the much bigger risk. Most people who die in explosions are killed by shrapnel. An arc-flash doesn't have shrapnel.
Sure it could burn you - but it isn't going to sever your arteries.
That's what I meant. To build in orbit you have to GET in orbit. That means going through atmosphere. Even if you build from materials in orbit - you would still need to get the pilot there.
I suppose you could conceivably build an unmanned craft entirely in orbit... but you would still need to get the construction tools into orbit and that, again, requires going through the atmosphere.
An explosion is defined as a rapid energetic gaseous expansion. Usually due to a high energy chemical reaction but disturbing a superheated liquid would count too. Arc flash is... not that. Well maybe if its energetic enough to plasmafy the air but I doubt there is any reason to put that much energy in your pocket.
You know you will need to travel through atmo to get in orbit first, right ?
EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS EVER COME TO POWER SAYING THE THINGS HE SAID ENDED ELECTIONS.
Every. Single. One. Ever.
But Sure... after copying them every step of the way until now, there is no reason to suspect he will copy them further.
Sure, but it's not an explosion.
This actually sounds perfect for powering vapes.
We're fanatics ? Because we fear that a fascist may act like a fascist and create a dictatorship - or start a nuclear war, both of which would prevent another election from happening.
How are WE the fanatics ? We're not suggesting it SHOULD be the last election - we're trying to fight to make sure it WON'T be.
Actually, this would likely be a LOT safer than the exploding batteries, exactly because a capacitor is a much simpler device. Critically - it needs no chemically volatile liquids. Batteries are filled with highly reactive chemicals - they have to be to store energy in the form of lose ions. Lose ions only exist if the chemical is highly reactive.
Highly reactive == potentially explosive.
But a capacity is made of solid, non-moving parts - I actually can't see a scenario where it could explode. A huge charge with a short could possibly cause a great deal of heat, and some major sparks which could set OTHER things on fire, but I can't see a scenario where a capacitor would burn . There's no reason to put any flammable material whatsoever in one.
Maybe somebody with more knowledge than me can show that these types contain some highly reactive/flammable materials and that this is important to their operation but I wouldn't bet on.
Depends what you throw it at. A jar of nitroglycerine maybe ?
>There is no doubt we will all live to regret this election
I fear there is a very real chance only the second half of that sentence is true.
>No, I expect you to believe that they are very good at making money. If they honestly believe that there are alternatives that can conceivably compete with their existing business then they are going to invest in it, not try to kill it off.
And throw away billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars of past investments while those are still making money ? Only a complete fucking moron would do that. Apparently YOU would - and that explains why you can't understand why they won't.
Beaver monthly magazine ? In my teen years, before the internet, I used to "read" those (and learned many tricks to acquire them while not being legally of age to buy them).
It's Germany. Not America. Their democracy works and their people aren't idiots.
Actually climate is more aeronautics and space than it is weather. Seriously climate is NOT weather.
>And finally, other members of the government have suggested this move in the past, including Ted Cruz.
Yes, it's often and exclusively suggested by republicans who deny climate change who hate that the scientists keep telling the public they are lying. It's a scam. Take the money from NASA while at the SAME TIME cutting funding of NOAA - and thus you can shut up all those annoying scientists.
Seriously Ted Cruz ? One of the least honest and most horrible people to ever hold power in the USA ? A man with so little respect for individual liberty that when a wrongfully convicted prisoner in Texas proved his innocense beyond all doubt AND the real criminal was caught - he fought (as state atorney general at the time) in court to try and convince the judge NOT to let the innocent man go and instead force him to finish the remaining 6 years of the 10 year sentence he should never have gotten. All while AT THE SAME TIME - leading the prosecution of the actual criminal, he was quite happy to have two people serve time for a crime that only one had committed.
This is your example of a sane and trustworthy politician ?
I want to read the paper you publish. Please provide a link.
I notice he has not replied. How odd. You would think NASA making such a statement would be big news. There'd be a press release and such - he'd be able to link us to at least one newspaper report, or a scientific paper that stated what the margin is and at least some sort of credible assesment that this margin is "huge" (as opposed to his own subjective interpretation of a number he didn't [want to] understand) and sure.
And surely if it invalidated any of their results - then there WOULD be studies showing this. The oil industry is spending hundreds of millions on anti-climate-change propaganda, they would surely be able to offer a few million in a nice grant to any scientist who could do so. I mean - the deniers always tell us scientists publish climate change articles to get money... if they are so greedy, how come the oil companies can't seem to buy any that will write a decent paper and reveal the 'truth' ?