If you pay a group of people to find a particular answer, more than 50% of them will normally find that answer. As long as you continue paying them to find that answer, it is likely that the majority will continue to find that answer. --stevengoddard
unfortunately, the current definition of "try something" means - to tax the fuck out of the evil common people to where they have less luxury to emit co2.
that does nothing so your screwed no matter how you look at it.
if warmists want to go back to living in caves, who the hell is stopping you. You dont need a law, a tax or anything else. Give up your shit and get the fuck on.
always trying to find some sinister connection with the "tea party". A better name for them might be a collective group of people pissed of at government but saying they are former John Birchers - please. I would bet 99.99999% do not even know who or what that is.
Democrats are screaming for higher tax burdens to fund failed social programs that they control (education, healthcare, retirement, family planning etc)
You clearly do not understand what a fascist is. It happens to be an excellent description of the current democrat party.
They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system.
Are anti-capitalists
Believe in the rule by the Elites
Industrial Management by labor Unions
Social Darwinism
Call for a "progressive biomedical model" aka eugenics
Seek the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy
If your worried about fascism your focused on the wrong party pal.
Whenever a democrat speaks your getting some spin from the truth. One states experiment hardly constitutes a Republican plan but party devotion overrides your honesty and beacons you to echo the talking point no matter how obscene or dishonest.
Most people recoiled at the Health Care Act because no one knew what the fuck was in it or who the fuck wrote it but everyone knew it would affect them in some way. It was also an unprecedented encroachment on what was perceived to be within each States domain. Any normal freedom loving individual should have been skeptical and critical. Had it been Bush, you would have been. But foolishly, you jumped on the train and surrendered your freedom to a thing you knew nothing about.
And it looks like the opposition was right. The full extent of this new law is just being revealed and what we are learning is not good. It was clearly a failed bill and an excellent example of what not to do!
Scenario: Your spouse rang up 50K in credit card debt and you only make 80K. What do you do?
1. Take away the credit card and cut spending to accelerate debt pay down.
2. Give spouse another credit card and seize a portion of your children's pay check to cover the interest.
These are the basic plans of each party. The debt ceiling has to be raised because the money is already spent. The debate is over how much more to spend and who pays for it. Somehow, they have done a great job convincing you to hand over even more of your paycheck
And by the way - That surplus under Clinton was the result of a Republican controlled congress. The debt under Bush was the result of a Democrat controlled congress and yes, they voted to spend the money on war. Further, Its debt that will drive us into a depression. Do you think people file for bankruptcy because they save money or spend? Wake up brother. I know your drunk on Obama but you need to get off the kool-aid just for a moment to realize what is going on. I hope this helped.
Take a infinitesimally short time period viewed through the distorted prism of childhood memory and use that as a basis for confirming or denying climate theory.
ummm. isnt this exactly what the fear mongers are doing?
During the 1930s, as much as 80% of the US suffered severe to extreme drought. What caused this?
Scientists at the time claimed the earth was flat. It was the minority that challenged the consensus.
Some of the most grotesque holocaust crimes were committed in the name of science.
your 0 for 2.
perhaps its the rumors concerning the relationship with the CIA and other 3 letter agencies. Apparently, facebook provides a nifty search feature that among other things, allows agencies to identify people using just a picture. People have crowd sourced their identity and facebook is selling it.
Swedish mathematician Claes Johnson explains where the basic problem of radiation lies in the greenhouse effect: The basic postulate of IPCC climate alarmism is the relation dQ = 4 dT connecting radiative forcing dQ to global warming dT, with dQ = 4 Watts/m^2 from doubling of CO2 giving a climate sensitivity or global warming of dT = 1 C, which is inflated to 1.5 â" 4.5 C by feed back.
The relation dQ = 4 dT comes from Stefan-Boltzmanns Radiation Law, which cannot be disputed as such.
The reason the Radiation Law does not determine the temperature of the surface of the Earth to its value of 15 C, is that the Earth is one part of the coupled Earth-atmosphere system with radiation exchange between the parts. The Radiation Law determines the temperature of the surface of the system, the stratopause, to 0Â C, but not the Earth surface temperature.
"But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct.." “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
"Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
The moderation on slashdot is very telling of the overall problem with science today. It is impossible to contribute any alternative to the AGW conversation. The slightest indication of one veering from the "group think"... gets modded down.
In the climategate emails, we see very similar behavior.
One day, integrity and honesty will be restored to the scientific debate. Until then, i hope you take take your religion seriously and unplug your computer, stop using any form of electricity and enjoy the summer with no a.c. Oh and to ensure no hypocrisy on your part, you must go full primitive. No toilet paper, ice etc.
If you cant live up to that, you my friend are the real "denier".
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. Heâ(TM)s just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be âoepredictableâ.
3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.
4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.
would you like more...?
Slashdot Mirror
If you pay a group of people to find a particular answer, more than 50% of them will normally find that answer. As long as you continue paying them to find that answer, it is likely that the majority will continue to find that answer. --stevengoddard
unfortunately, the current definition of "try something" means - to tax the fuck out of the evil common people to where they have less luxury to emit co2.
that does nothing so your screwed no matter how you look at it.
if warmists want to go back to living in caves, who the hell is stopping you. You dont need a law, a tax or anything else. Give up your shit and get the fuck on.
now why cant al gore lead by example.
rofl.
always trying to find some sinister connection with the "tea party". A better name for them might be a collective group of people pissed of at government but saying they are former John Birchers - please. I would bet 99.99999% do not even know who or what that is.
trying to distance himself. ha if he had any real balls, he would have named names and gave clear examples.
Huh?
Democrats are screaming for higher tax burdens to fund failed social programs that they control (education, healthcare, retirement, family planning etc)
You clearly do not understand what a fascist is. It happens to be an excellent description of the current democrat party.
They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system.
Are anti-capitalists
Believe in the rule by the Elites
Industrial Management by labor Unions
Social Darwinism
Call for a "progressive biomedical model" aka eugenics
Seek the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy
If your worried about fascism your focused on the wrong party pal.
Obama implements a Republican health care act..
Whenever a democrat speaks your getting some spin from the truth. One states experiment hardly constitutes a Republican plan but party devotion overrides your honesty and beacons you to echo the talking point no matter how obscene or dishonest.
Most people recoiled at the Health Care Act because no one knew what the fuck was in it or who the fuck wrote it but everyone knew it would affect them in some way. It was also an unprecedented encroachment on what was perceived to be within each States domain. Any normal freedom loving individual should have been skeptical and critical. Had it been Bush, you would have been. But foolishly, you jumped on the train and surrendered your freedom to a thing you knew nothing about.
And it looks like the opposition was right. The full extent of this new law is just being revealed and what we are learning is not good. It was clearly a failed bill and an excellent example of what not to do!
Scenario: Your spouse rang up 50K in credit card debt and you only make 80K. What do you do?
1. Take away the credit card and cut spending to accelerate debt pay down.
2. Give spouse another credit card and seize a portion of your children's pay check to cover the interest.
These are the basic plans of each party. The debt ceiling has to be raised because the money is already spent. The debate is over how much more to spend and who pays for it. Somehow, they have done a great job convincing you to hand over even more of your paycheck
And by the way - That surplus under Clinton was the result of a Republican controlled congress. The debt under Bush was the result of a Democrat controlled congress and yes, they voted to spend the money on war. Further, Its debt that will drive us into a depression. Do you think people file for bankruptcy because they save money or spend? Wake up brother. I know your drunk on Obama but you need to get off the kool-aid just for a moment to realize what is going on. I hope this helped.
Take a infinitesimally short time period viewed through the distorted prism of childhood memory and use that as a basis for confirming or denying climate theory.
ummm. isnt this exactly what the fear mongers are doing?
During the 1930s, as much as 80% of the US suffered severe to extreme drought. What caused this?
the chief reasons they aren't competitive is that any subsidies they may get are dwarfed by what is handed over to oil companies.
Did you consider reliability and cost in your market analysis?
ala wind subsidies
I cant seem to find a single climate model that predicted the abnormal cold oceans.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Do you have one?
damn. your raging all over this article made me feel bad for trolling you.
Relax dude. The world is not going to fucking end.
who told you this lie?
Scientists at the time claimed the earth was flat. It was the minority that challenged the consensus. Some of the most grotesque holocaust crimes were committed in the name of science. your 0 for 2.
perhaps its the rumors concerning the relationship with the CIA and other 3 letter agencies. Apparently, facebook provides a nifty search feature that among other things, allows agencies to identify people using just a picture. People have crowd sourced their identity and facebook is selling it.
next time, use a drone.
the lobbyist will ensure textbooks live well past their prime and libraries will continue to serve those without.
this might help connect the dots...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/nasa-jpl-on-new-insights-on-how-solar-minimums-affect-earth/
Swedish mathematician Claes Johnson explains where the basic problem of radiation lies in the greenhouse effect:
The basic postulate of IPCC climate alarmism is the relation dQ = 4 dT connecting radiative forcing dQ to global warming dT, with dQ = 4 Watts/m^2 from doubling of CO2 giving a climate sensitivity or global warming of dT = 1 C, which is inflated to 1.5 â" 4.5 C by feed back.
The relation dQ = 4 dT comes from Stefan-Boltzmanns Radiation Law, which cannot be disputed as such.
The reason the Radiation Law does not determine the temperature of the surface of the Earth to its value of 15 C, is that the Earth is one part of the coupled Earth-atmosphere system with radiation exchange between the parts. The Radiation Law determines the temperature of the surface of the system, the stratopause, to 0Â C, but not the Earth surface temperature.
what in this post warrants a troll?
These are factual quotes with a sourced article that is relative to the story.
a rogue moderator pushing an agenda or is there a legitimate issue?
hmmm. http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
"But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct.."
“It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
"Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
retro lan party.
profit.
The moderation on slashdot is very telling of the overall problem with science today. It is impossible to contribute any alternative to the AGW conversation. The slightest indication of one veering from the "group think" ... gets modded down.
In the climategate emails, we see very similar behavior.
One day, integrity and honesty will be restored to the scientific debate. Until then, i hope you take take your religion seriously and unplug your computer, stop using any form of electricity and enjoy the summer with no a.c. Oh and to ensure no hypocrisy on your part, you must go full primitive. No toilet paper, ice etc.
If you cant live up to that, you my friend are the real "denier".
"There is serious debate about the mechanisms and models of climate change amongst the scientists involved.."
If you only listen to one side of the echo chamber, is this serious debate?
There are many credible scientists that fall into the category of skeptic.
Ever had a glimpse into the literature? Just a tiny review article or two?
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. Heâ(TM)s just not very good at securing his web site. 2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be âoepredictableâ. 3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2. 4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities. would you like more...?
still killing little babies i see.
must be hard to face the truth.
lucky for you grist has online confessional. I guess this wraps up the religion debate...
http://climatequotes.com/2011/04/24/a-tour-of-grists-earth-confessions-website/