You probably shouldn't trust that stuff, unfortunately. A lot of it isn't really science, because about 1/2 to 2/3rds of published journal articles can't be replicated.
That quote predates the Colbert show. And the amount of bad science involved in AGW is insignificant. People are corruptible, and anywhere there is money will attract some corruption. That there isn't more might actually be considered surprising, and a testament to science's ability to weed out corruption through replication.
It was a response to the threat the government posed to religions. A lot of the early founders of this country cared deeply about religious freedom, and wanted to do everything in their power to keep government's hands off the church.
Which is why the fiscal conservatives should join the democratic party, and make an effort to get more fiscally conservative social liberals winning elections. It's the only path to sanity.
But the fiscal conservatives have chosen to throw in their lot with the social conservatives rather than try to effect change within the liberal camp. Which is why they are equally deserving of disdain.
PV panels not earning back their energy production costs is an urban legend. The actual earn-back period including production, transportation, and installation is only a couple of years.
The oil companies and corn farms had the good sense to get subsidies large enough to avoid bankruptcy. The Democrats are just playing out of their league.
Don't keep me in suspense, does it work out to more or less than the 150 years it will take us to exhaust all the proven, unproven, and unconventional reserves of oil in the world?
There is an editor. Nobody does these projects in game, it's literally impossible (not enough game ticks per second * time minecraft has been out to accomplish the builds).
or can't understand that the US wants to subsidize solar production in the US. It's not that we hate the Chinese, it's just that they keep trying to poison our children with lead, so we'd rather those jobs go to US citizens.
That's where I think you're incorrect. While it is indeed the job of legislators to both draft and pass laws, only the passing of laws is reserved to them exclusively. Anyone may draft a law, as an element of their free speech rights. I suppose based on your response that it might depend on precisely what a person means by 'draft'.
The article doesn't even suggest they will draft the laws themselves. So the summary went to far and used the word draft. You went from there to pass, which is further in the wrong direction.
It actually seems much harder to me to make the case that requiring you to commit a criminal act is a valid employment test than it is that the quality of your pee may be a valid employment test.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably shouldn't trust that stuff, unfortunately. A lot of it isn't really science, because about 1/2 to 2/3rds of published journal articles can't be replicated.
Science is indeed a thing to be trusted in. Because its results are repeatable. That's kind of the whole point.
Whereas religion should not be trusted, precisely because you don't know if you'll get the same result.
I don't think you made your point if that was what you were aiming for.
That quote predates the Colbert show.
And the amount of bad science involved in AGW is insignificant. People are corruptible, and anywhere there is money will attract some corruption. That there isn't more might actually be considered surprising, and a testament to science's ability to weed out corruption through replication.
It was a response to the threat the government posed to religions. A lot of the early founders of this country cared deeply about religious freedom, and wanted to do everything in their power to keep government's hands off the church.
It stopped being funny when everyone realized it was true. Because the other side decided to depart from reality.
Which is why the fiscal conservatives should join the democratic party, and make an effort to get more fiscally conservative social liberals winning elections. It's the only path to sanity.
But the fiscal conservatives have chosen to throw in their lot with the social conservatives rather than try to effect change within the liberal camp. Which is why they are equally deserving of disdain.
That 10k pays for all kinds of stuff not typically considered energy (and which wouldn't be counted against other forms of energy generation).
Most municipal water supplies sold out to private industry years ago.
PV panels not earning back their energy production costs is an urban legend. The actual earn-back period including production, transportation, and installation is only a couple of years.
The oil companies and corn farms had the good sense to get subsidies large enough to avoid bankruptcy. The Democrats are just playing out of their league.
Don't keep me in suspense, does it work out to more or less than the 150 years it will take us to exhaust all the proven, unproven, and unconventional reserves of oil in the world?
Yeah, I suspect you got hit reflexively for that. Maybe a kind mod will correct the issue. Your post is quite relevant. Interesting and/or funny.
There is an editor. Nobody does these projects in game, it's literally impossible (not enough game ticks per second * time minecraft has been out to accomplish the builds).
Ok, I surrender. If you want to be willfully wrong, there's no stopping you. Multiple reliable sources dispute your terminology.
I agree that it says only representatives may introduce a bill, but mentions several other sources which may draft them, including the public.
or can't understand that the US wants to subsidize solar production in the US.
It's not that we hate the Chinese, it's just that they keep trying to poison our children with lead, so we'd rather those jobs go to US citizens.
That again is your definition, with which many reasonably qualified sources disagree, for example:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourceofleg.html
That's where I think you're incorrect. While it is indeed the job of legislators to both draft and pass laws, only the passing of laws is reserved to them exclusively. Anyone may draft a law, as an element of their free speech rights. I suppose based on your response that it might depend on precisely what a person means by 'draft'.
IBM doesn't get all that many software patents. Theirs are mostly hardware innovations.
Do you agree?
The article doesn't even suggest they will draft the laws themselves. So the summary went to far and used the word draft. You went from there to pass, which is further in the wrong direction.
Draft and pass are different words, and the difference is fairly critical to your point.
It actually seems much harder to me to make the case that requiring you to commit a criminal act is a valid employment test than it is that the quality of your pee may be a valid employment test.