Yeah, pretty much.
Whoever modded me troll obviously doesn't understand what I was trying to say, beyond bashing AGW.
IMPLEMENTING "GREEN" POLICIES ISN'T A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION.
You seem to have serious problems reading.
Right below the original investigation:
MSTI review
On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:
* The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed]
* The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
* The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
* The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr. Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[4]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[5][6] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
I don't watch Fox News either, as they're about as credible as MSNBC and CNN.
If you aren't even going to read it, then I can't discuss it with you. I don't have any preconceived notions about either Lomborg or the critic, but it seems as if he's just another political figure, regardless of which side he's on.
I might even buy the book to see if his debunking of the debunking is correct.
Frankly, I don't think he would risk sinking his career (further) by publishing more inaccurate statements.
Yes, but the government should not be allowed to restrict who is able to buy internet access.
I obviously am not suggesting that ISPs (or any business entity) be forbidden from refusing service.
I assume you are only speaking in terms of non-casual gaming, correct?
There are plenty of entertaining casual games which aren't particularly difficult, and there are some which are insanely hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the sun around the earth, right?
I know, but seeing the scores reminds me that people don't understand how hypocritical they are ;)
This is flamebait:
You're an idiot.
On the other hand, it's still true.
Being religious is not necessary for being dogmatic.
The market will indeed fix it. Cap-n-trade isn't a market.
The only moderation on this thread has been modding me down and modding everybody else up, so I don't know what you're talking about.
I get modded flamebait and troll and this gets modded informative? ....I'll be here all day, mods. Keep throwing dem apples.
And tomorrow too!
Yeah, pretty much. Whoever modded me troll obviously doesn't understand what I was trying to say, beyond bashing AGW. IMPLEMENTING "GREEN" POLICIES ISN'T A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION.
Well, at least the shareholders aren't buying into "sustainability" scam.
MSTI review On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including: * The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed] * The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed] * The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place; * The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr. Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and ... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[4]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[5][6] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
I don't watch Fox News either, as they're about as credible as MSNBC and CNN. If you aren't even going to read it, then I can't discuss it with you. I don't have any preconceived notions about either Lomborg or the critic, but it seems as if he's just another political figure, regardless of which side he's on.
I've never heard of the Daily Mail, much less read it. Please read Lomborg's (relatively short) rebuttal.
In your haste, you misread the first paragraph and proved yourself an idiot. Congratulations.
I might even buy the book to see if his debunking of the debunking is correct. Frankly, I don't think he would risk sinking his career (further) by publishing more inaccurate statements.
Your statement is incorrect. The internet is inherently open, but can be twisted.
Idiots like you?
I'm not sure why you'd want to side with anybody who wants to ban tobacco, but I see your point.
Yes, because giving terrorists more attention promotes peace.... right?
And note that the internet, in its current state, is not funded by or operated by our government.
Yes, but the government should not be allowed to restrict who is able to buy internet access. I obviously am not suggesting that ISPs (or any business entity) be forbidden from refusing service.
You have it wrong. (Free) access to the internet isn't a right, but the ability to buy internet access most certainly is.
I assume you are only speaking in terms of non-casual gaming, correct? There are plenty of entertaining casual games which aren't particularly difficult, and there are some which are insanely hard.
Are you saying a market can't exist without rules set by an arbitrary entity?
It's obviously not a market solution if the government has to force it to exist.
You were implying that the average gun owner ate at KFC (and, by extension, not very wealthy). I was correcting that notion.