Yeah, except that 97% is a made up statistic in the category of "repeat a lie often enough and people will think it is the truth. 97% of IPCC climate scientist agree with the IPCC findings.
One would hope so, since they helped craft the findings. Self selection at it's finest.
Broaden that out, and that number starts to fall dramatically: 66% of all climate scientists.
Broaden that out again, to match the phrasing often used: "Scientists" with no qualifier, it drops below 5%
If you look at total tax reciepts, it is always around 18% of GDP. It does not matter where you get it from, it is still coming out of the same economy.
As a practical matter, this chart shows us a very obvious, but little-understood phenomenon, namely, that 18% or thereabouts is the rate at which the electorate consents to be taxed. Think about that for a minute. Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over a system of steeply graduated tax rates with a top marginal tax rate of 90%. He got 18% of GDP in revenue. Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates, simplified the structure into three brackets, indexed for inflation, with a top marginal tax rate of 28%and got 18% of GDP in revenue.
Given the 50 years ago, the height of technology was the just introduced "Touch Tone Phone", I am not expecting the mode of communication to resemble the current "Smart Phone"
But yes, they can shut down the grid now, what this gives them is the ability to shut down specific groups... like say a political party on election day.
It is not fraud, it is someone not reading the damn website.
You go look at one, it is clearly NOT supporting the candidate, it is full of anti-candidate messages.
"If Nancy Pelosi is to become Speaker of the House in 2014, she is going to need loyal liberal foot soldiers like Carol Shea-Porter by her side in Congress. Since her return to Congress in 2012, Shea-Porter has voted along partisan lines 95% of the time."
Quite easily found with a google, you just have to put down your confirmation bias first:
Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.
For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publically available.
The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government.
Don't think so Above. Quite easily found with a Google:
"Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.
For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publicly available."
For the brief time AJAM was available, they had in my opinion the most even handed hard news. Their editorial/pundit? Not so much, but their hard news was pleasantly non-partisan. (and I say that as a Conservative)
Not to mention the most powerful form of lie: Don't talk about, or don't shut up about it.
Back when there was the Big 3 and newspapers, there was no way. Now we have more outlets and internet, but a concerted effort to bury a story, like say Bengazi, while spending crazy amounts of time on a bridge closure in NJ, they have set the agenda.
He is a political writer and sometimes satirist, not a scientist, so any statements he says about scientific matters is exactly that: an opinion with no hard grounding in the sciences. In fact, most of his commentary about the whole thing is observations on how political the situation is and that it might be interfering with the investigations
If say, Neil Tyson said it, it could be taken as a statement with a gravitas.
Yet insecure because daddy told him he was a failure, and he set out to prove daddy wrong.
His impulse control seemed to be good from what I saw, he frequently reigned in the more rapacious behavior of his underlings, if only to protect his image.
Yes, but we already know that hockey stick graph was misleading. Mann left off the warming and cooling trend of the Medival warming trend, aka, the right side of the valley, to show a hockey stick, not an elongated U.
We also know he had code problems, and his results are bad.
Fraud? Probably not.
Confirmation Bias? Probably.
Steyn is stating his opinion, so I am not sure it rises to libel
Slashdot Mirror
I know where it comes from, but it would invoke Godwin's law if I explained.
It is a lie of omission. They make it sound like it is scientists everywhere, it is only scientists who are members of the publishing body.
Yeah, except that 97% is a made up statistic in the category of "repeat a lie often enough and people will think it is the truth.
97% of IPCC climate scientist agree with the IPCC findings.
One would hope so, since they helped craft the findings. Self selection at it's finest.
Broaden that out, and that number starts to fall dramatically: 66% of all climate scientists.
Broaden that out again, to match the phrasing often used: "Scientists" with no qualifier, it drops below 5%
http://www.friendsofscience.or...
Oh, and Bill Nye's (everyones favorite "Scientist" example these days) does not get a vote: He is an engineer.
I think you have the wrong party. Democrats are about equal outcomes.
We "Republicans" understand not everyone has the outcome, there are people that will never be able to rise above a Walmart job.
The problem comes in incentives in the form of subsidies to keep people at the WalMart level.
Bad theory.
Half the population of less than average IQ. Right now, about 30% of the population holds a degree.
Sounds about right, we have to allocate resources to those most likely to be able to make the most of them.
Unintended consequence: Professors pass everyone.
All the kids here at Wobegon University are above average...
"“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Nancy Pelosi
If you look at total tax reciepts, it is always around 18% of GDP. It does not matter where you get it from, it is still coming out of the same economy.
As a practical matter, this chart shows us a very obvious, but little-understood phenomenon, namely, that 18% or thereabouts is the rate at which the electorate consents to be taxed. Think about that for a minute. Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over a system of steeply graduated tax rates with a top marginal tax rate of 90%. He got 18% of GDP in revenue. Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates, simplified the structure into three brackets, indexed for inflation, with a top marginal tax rate of 28%and got 18% of GDP in revenue.
http://www.qando.net/?p=11079
This is why IBM has two lines of advancement: Technical, and Line Management.
Line Management does HR, resource management, business goals, budget, etc.
Technical line does technical work and leadership. Project Managers are not management of personnel, but of projects.
That at least, they get right.
Given the 50 years ago, the height of technology was the just introduced "Touch Tone Phone", I am not expecting the mode of communication to resemble the current "Smart Phone"
But yes, they can shut down the grid now, what this gives them is the ability to shut down specific groups... like say a political party on election day.
First, put down the axes.
It is not fraud, it is someone not reading the damn website.
You go look at one, it is clearly NOT supporting the candidate, it is full of anti-candidate messages.
"If Nancy Pelosi is to become Speaker of the House in 2014, she is going to need loyal liberal foot soldiers like Carol Shea-Porter by her side in Congress. Since her return to Congress in 2012, Shea-Porter has voted along partisan lines 95% of the time."
Quite easily found with a google, you just have to put down your confirmation bias first:
Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.
For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publically available.
http://junkscience.com/2013/08...
I am sure there are more examples out there, but I you have the same access to Google I do.
The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government.
Don't think so Above. Quite easily found with a Google:
"Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.
For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publicly available."
http://junkscience.com/2013/08...
How about the government shutting off large numbers of cell phones to stop a protest or because someone is "wanted" or is considered a "fugitive" ?
Once they have the power, they will figure out how to abuse it.
If you want hard news, you watch Bret Baier, the first half hour.
The panel section... sort of, some days.
Chris Wallace is pretty good too.
MSNBC? Not even half an hours worth to provide a fig leaf.
Pew Research says Fox News (Cable) is split 55/45 commentary to fact news like most of the major networks.
MSNBC is 85/15.
http://stateofthemedia.org/201...
For the brief time AJAM was available, they had in my opinion the most even handed hard news. Their editorial/pundit? Not so much, but their hard news was pleasantly non-partisan. (and I say that as a Conservative)
Not to mention the most powerful form of lie: Don't talk about, or don't shut up about it.
Back when there was the Big 3 and newspapers, there was no way. Now we have more outlets and internet, but a concerted effort to bury a story, like say Bengazi, while spending crazy amounts of time on a bridge closure in NJ, they have set the agenda.
Yes, and present as a "go -no go" choice and let him make the call.
If he says no go, you can move on with no consequences. If it is "go" and it fails, you documented why it was in trouble and what the risks were.
I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
So why didn't he sue Al Gore?
At least he has a heap of money. The shutupola from would have exceed anything Steyn would make in a lifetime.
Indeed.
When BofA and HSBC, etc. screw you over, they do it by the book.
The book they helped to write.
WINNI...
Nevermind.
No,
because his writing would suck if he did that.
He is a political writer and sometimes satirist, not a scientist, so any statements he says about scientific matters is exactly that: an opinion with no hard grounding in the sciences. In fact, most of his commentary about the whole thing is observations on how political the situation is and that it might be interfering with the investigations
If say, Neil Tyson said it, it could be taken as a statement with a gravitas.
I attended a one classroom school for 7th and 8th grades.
Ok, technically it was 2 rooms, separated out the K-3rd graders.
I think the perfect example would be JP Morgan.
Clearly believed he was superior to everyone.
Yet insecure because daddy told him he was a failure, and he set out to prove daddy wrong.
His impulse control seemed to be good from what I saw, he frequently reigned in the more rapacious behavior of his underlings, if only to protect his image.
Yes, but we already know that hockey stick graph was misleading. Mann left off the warming and cooling trend of the Medival warming trend, aka, the right side of the valley, to show a hockey stick, not an elongated U.
We also know he had code problems, and his results are bad.
Fraud? Probably not.
Confirmation Bias? Probably.
Steyn is stating his opinion, so I am not sure it rises to libel