No they don't and they have been shut down plenty of times. Sadly it takes a force of personality to get through the initial bit. And that's wrong, and it should be changed. But lets not get stupid.
So you just choose to believe what infowars says without citation? That doesn't surprise me because pretty much everything you said was mad up crap.
How about you focus you're rage on actual things and policy change and less on makings stuff up.
" Too busy playing games or watching TV or blindly believing the liars we call politicians" ah, I see. Someone wan't verifiable evident and you call them lazy and liars.
"while 1 million innocents are killed or maimed in bombings, and we do Nothing." SO, you call people names, and the detract from the issue at hand. You got nothing.
" have to undergo substantial testing to demonstrate their immunity to electromagnetic interference." no. They have to be reasonable resistant against certain ranges of electromagnetic interference.
The answer to bad airport security isn't no airport security. It's good airport security.
Please, don't abolish the TSA, let's just return it to one the puts peoples rights and safety first. Rand Paul wants to eliminate it so his buddies can get a lucrative contract. Nothing more. You think it's bad now? wait until it's private security force and you have no recourse what so ever.
Because the Heartland institute is lying, and using lies to change policy. They are backed by people who want to be able to dump what they want where every they want regardless of the effect. SO yes, people need to be aware that these people are lying to change policy.
One side has mountains of facts and data, has research every available hypothesis, and has came to a consensus based on all the current data. The other side has no facts, not supporting evidence and has resorted to comparing people who know the actual science to a mass murders.
his isn't a discussion where two side have pretty much equal wait in evidence, that would have been the 70's and 80s'.
That's why one group is deniers, and the other groups is actual science and fact based.
"Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now. " that's because the continue to deny it even thought all the evidence points to AGW. They have no new hypothesis that fits the facts.
That's what makes them, or anyone, a denier. It's not because we don't iike what they are saying,l it's that they are saying nothing but lies.
Except for the fact that it works. As evidenced by history. Corporate and government economics are not the same as home economics. Not that you can understand anything bigger then yourself.
You know why I like Paul Krugman? before I knew who he was other then an economist I read his past blog post. He pretty much called it. The Bush situation, the economic fall out. SO why you have a long history of being right, I pay attention. I may not agree, but I stop and listen and think and research. You should try it.
" you should double down and spend your way out of debt? "
corporation successfully do this all the time.
Because a denier is some who flat out denies,. A skeptic look at the data and draws conclusion. \More data later may change that conclusion, but based on all the data we have, the current global warming is being cause by people.
I haven't heard an original argument from the deniers in 20 years. The arguments they bring up have been shown to be incorrect. This is all they have, lies.
Before 20 years ago, yeah, they where great scientific question. The needed to be looked at. Sun activity, solar wind, natural releases, wtc.. They where looked at.
SO the make up lies and shout about taxes and loosing freedom. Even though none of that is remotely needed for the policy change that need to take effect.
answer to 1 through 7 is 'Yes'. ALL the data we have supports that. Can new data change that? yes. However we can not sit around and wait for 'new' data. We need to look and we need to act. All know possible source to date have been ruled out except one: Humans.
"- taxing your breath" no one is proposing that.
"- crippling the world economy" Wouldn't happen,. I n fact it would bolster it.
"- billions of people poorer, governments richer" This make no sense. You do know the government spends money, right? you so know that money goes to people, right?
"- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result " That too nebulas to comment on. Freedom in the classic sense would not be infringed upon. If by freedom you mean 'I can do any damn thing I want, everyone else be damned. Then, no,. But you never had that. No one ever has.
"There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism)" no, there isn't. It's not 100%, but there isn't 'a lot of doubt' by the experts.
"he rest are political questions." True, but they are also survival questions. Lets not forget what we are talking about here. Survival of the species. That isn't hyperbole. If we don't reduce substantially, the areas on the earth the protect us be absorbing the heat will not be able to any more. We are talking a couple of hundred years, at best. Since it will take time to get the CO2 lowered, we need to start now. We also need to start on the infrastructure changes that will be needed.
"Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO"." Well, since 7 is irrelevant and stupid, it doesn't really deserve to be there because it's too damn vague.
"8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?" Oh, so some mistakes happened in the past so we don't try any more? that's you argument? what a dolt.
Here is one fro you: There are 4 times the cars on the roads in LA then there where in 1970. There's HALF the pollution. There are Many, many times where something was wrong and we made policy changes that helped. Many., many times.
AGW is a fact. Unless you have some new information that hasn't been completely shot down on why spewing 30 billion+ tons of a know green house gas isn't the reason for the temperature increase?
This is why you are a deniers and not an actual skeptic. And Actual skeptic looks at facts and draws a conclusion. A deniers makes up lies, wallows in ignorance and there replies boiled down to logical fallacies. You response might as well be "Oh Yeah"
You, sir, are the one practicining relgion in this discussion, not the people who studied facts and came to the conclusion.
Which bring be to this point:
I have watched and participated in this science to varying degrees for 35 years. All the question still being tossed around where actually legitimacy scientific questions then. They have been looked at studied and discarded when they didn't fit the actual data.
It's like the deniers just came here from the 1970's.
Slashdot Mirror
Martial law is declared.
http://onemansblog.com/2007/09/06/death-valleys-sailing-stones-mystery-solved/
No, ice has not ruled out,in fact it's been recorded happening.
Did you just toss the sentence out because?
anyways:
http://onemansblog.com/2007/09/06/death-valleys-sailing-stones-mystery-solved/
other location have been sold as well.
Wind, water or ice in the correct circumstances.
It's ghosts, and water that move the rocks. I mean, what happens when you put a rock on water? it sinks, clearly water can't move rocks~
This is all made up so scientists can get grants and force more taxes down are thought.
AGW sound like this, but 100 times worse.
When I come to work, I sneak liquor in by hiding it in my stomach.
I would say we don't need this level of screening any more.
Right your Representatives and ask them to bring TSA screening back to pre 2001 levels.
because they don't have the internet?
No they don't and they have been shut down plenty of times. Sadly it takes a force of personality to get through the initial bit. And that's wrong, and it should be changed. But lets not get stupid.
So you just choose to believe what infowars says without citation?
That doesn't surprise me because pretty much everything you said was mad up crap.
How about you focus you're rage on actual things and policy change and less on makings stuff up.
" Too busy playing games or watching TV or blindly believing the liars we call politicians"
ah, I see. Someone wan't verifiable evident and you call them lazy and liars.
"while 1 million innocents are killed or maimed in bombings, and we do Nothing."
SO, you call people names, and the detract from the issue at hand.
You got nothing.
Because you want a private police force that you have no recourse against doing this exact same thing?
Wise up.
They wouldn't if they stop subsidizing passenger air flight.
" have to undergo substantial testing to demonstrate their immunity to electromagnetic interference."
no. They have to be reasonable resistant against certain ranges of electromagnetic interference.
no, no and no.
The answer to bad airport security isn't no airport security. It's good airport security.
Please, don't abolish the TSA, let's just return it to one the puts peoples rights and safety first.
Rand Paul wants to eliminate it so his buddies can get a lucrative contract. Nothing more. You think it's bad now? wait until it's private security force and you have no recourse what so ever.
Wan't a non threat. Yes, good ol' fashion intelligence work s wins, again.
over site would help because they wouldn't be allowed.
average ticket price in 2012 — $7.83
You do the math.
You forget another option:
Waiting.
the movie would have made 14 bajillion dollars!!!
Because the Heartland institute is lying, and using lies to change policy. They are backed by people who want to be able to dump what they want where every they want regardless of the effect. SO yes, people need to be aware that these people are lying to change policy.
One side has mountains of facts and data, has research every available hypothesis, and has came to a consensus based on all the current data. The other side has no facts, not supporting evidence and has resorted to comparing people who know the actual science to a mass murders.
his isn't a discussion where two side have pretty much equal wait in evidence, that would have been the 70's and 80s'.
That's why one group is deniers, and the other groups is actual science and fact based.
"Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now. "
that's because the continue to deny it even thought all the evidence points to AGW. They have no new hypothesis that fits the facts.
That's what makes them, or anyone, a denier. It's not because we don't iike what they are saying,l it's that they are saying nothing but lies.
A billboard with Bin Laden "That man believed in God, do you?"
Except for the fact that it works. As evidenced by history.
Corporate and government economics are not the same as home economics. Not that you can understand anything bigger then yourself.
You know why I like Paul Krugman? before I knew who he was other then an economist I read his past blog post. He pretty much called it. The Bush situation, the economic fall out. SO why you have a long history of being right, I pay attention. I may not agree, but I stop and listen and think and research.
You should try it.
" you should double down and spend your way out of debt? "
corporation successfully do this all the time.
Because a denier is some who flat out denies,. A skeptic look at the data and draws conclusion. \More data later may change that conclusion, but based on all the data we have, the current global warming is being cause by people.
I haven't heard an original argument from the deniers in 20 years. The arguments they bring up have been shown to be incorrect. This is all they have, lies.
Before 20 years ago, yeah, they where great scientific question. The needed to be looked at. Sun activity, solar wind, natural releases, wtc.. They where looked at.
SO the make up lies and shout about taxes and loosing freedom. Even though none of that is remotely needed for the policy change that need to take effect.
answer to 1 through 7 is 'Yes'. ALL the data we have supports that. Can new data change that? yes. However we can not sit around and wait for 'new' data. We need to look and we need to act. All know possible source to date have been ruled out except one: Humans.
"- taxing your breath"
no one is proposing that.
"- crippling the world economy"
Wouldn't happen,. I n fact it would bolster it.
"- billions of people poorer, governments richer"
This make no sense. You do know the government spends money, right? you so know that money goes to people, right?
"- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result "
That too nebulas to comment on. Freedom in the classic sense would not be infringed upon. If by freedom you mean 'I can do any damn thing I want, everyone else be damned. Then, no,. But you never had that. No one ever has.
"There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism)"
no, there isn't. It's not 100%, but there isn't 'a lot of doubt' by the experts.
"he rest are political questions."
True, but they are also survival questions. Lets not forget what we are talking about here. Survival of the species. That isn't hyperbole. If we don't reduce substantially, the areas on the earth the protect us be absorbing the heat will not be able to any more. We are talking a couple of hundred years, at best. Since it will take time to get the CO2 lowered, we need to start now. We also need to start on the infrastructure changes that will be needed.
"Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO"."
Well, since 7 is irrelevant and stupid, it doesn't really deserve to be there because it's too damn vague.
"8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?"
Oh, so some mistakes happened in the past so we don't try any more? that's you argument? what a dolt.
Here is one fro you:
There are 4 times the cars on the roads in LA then there where in 1970. There's HALF the pollution. There are Many, many times where something was wrong and we made policy changes that helped. Many., many times.
AGW is a fact. Unless you have some new information that hasn't been completely shot down on why spewing 30 billion+ tons of a know green house gas isn't the reason for the temperature increase?
This is why you are a deniers and not an actual skeptic. And Actual skeptic looks at facts and draws a conclusion. A deniers makes up lies, wallows in ignorance and there replies boiled down to logical fallacies. You response might as well be "Oh Yeah"
You, sir, are the one practicining relgion in this discussion, not the people who studied facts and came to the conclusion.
Which bring be to this point:
I have watched and participated in this science to varying degrees for 35 years. All the question still being tossed around where actually legitimacy scientific questions then. They have been looked at studied and discarded when they didn't fit the actual data.
It's like the deniers just came here from the 1970's.