as I said before: most "libertarians" aren't. there are generally two types of "libertarian": -conservatives who for whatever reason don't want the title -conservative who are cool with gay rights, drug use, and/or crime/police reform.
Of the people who wear the name Libertarian, there are very few true libertarians. I myself am more libertarian than most who claim it. My positions range from left-libertarian to straight progressive liberal. (Both of which reduce to "libtard" in most "libertarians" limited vocabularies).
you idiot. government is the only reason contracts are even enforceable. without government and its courts, who's going to enforce your contract against breach?
Oh shutup. they aren't democrats. The key word is REGISTERED. It's a lie. It's a bunch of conservatives who register as democrats in order to spoil the democrat primaries in the state. It's a classic textbook example of the spoiler problem with the typical election system of this country, but taken to the extreme.
there are these things, called elections, where you can correct politicians who you dont like. you can even hold special ones to impeach or recall if it's serious enough.
only on the topic of global warming is the stereotypically abysmal quality of science reporting of major media ignored and their statements treated like the absolute Gospel of what every scientist involved has ever believed, ever.
here's a clue: news reporters != scientists so just cause they say it, doesnt mean the scientific community is saying it.
so what do your models say? how do you explain the sharply rising CO2 levels compared to the historical rate of increase? the increasing temperatures?
oh thats right. you cant. cause you dont have anything but bullshit, since all the actual science is over here.
call it religion all you want, but until you get some science and basic facts on your side, there's only one of us subscribing to a religion based on faith instead of observational and testable facts. and it aint us.
that's an awful long post. too bad its all bullshit. such a waste of time and effort.
-no one is asking to give politicians "unlimited power to regulate every aspect of your life" -lots of people, far smarter than you, have already investigated, tested, and evaluated all the various natural process candidates. -no one is saying we need to get below 100ppm CO2 -you ask for scientific evidence, when there are already tens of thousands of scientific reports and papers and findings already published. -actually all of the observations DO support the theory. in fact they are the basis of it. -actually all of the satellite data DOES support it. -funny you mention the "adjustments". all the adjustments made actually lower the amount of apparent warming. it's not adjusted to match the theory, its adjusted to account for changes in instruments over the years, or location, or other factors. yeah, that's right. without the adjustments, the apparent amount of warming would be 20% higher.. this may be a shock to you, but a thermometer int he sun will read a higher temperature than one in the shade just a few inches away. so that way all the data is on the same baseline. -nope, the models havent failed.
seriously, just fuck off. your tropes are so tired and out of date, its getting boring repeatedly rebutting them every day.
you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein. Or more accurately, several thousand Einsteins. (and seriously, who modded that bullshit insightful?)
Maybe because of the shelfs extreme long stability resulting from the relative climate stability of hte past tens of thousands of years, such stability in fact that if only natural processes were at work the planet would be slightly cooling at the moment? Just an educated guess.
Slashdot Mirror
as I said before: most "libertarians" aren't.
there are generally two types of "libertarian":
-conservatives who for whatever reason don't want the title
-conservative who are cool with gay rights, drug use, and/or crime/police reform.
Of the people who wear the name Libertarian, there are very few true libertarians. I myself am more libertarian than most who claim it.
My positions range from left-libertarian to straight progressive liberal. (Both of which reduce to "libtard" in most "libertarians" limited vocabularies).
You don't have a point so theres nothing to argue.
democratic socialist.
there is a difference.
you idiot.
government is the only reason contracts are even enforceable.
without government and its courts, who's going to enforce your contract against breach?
Oh shutup. they aren't democrats. The key word is REGISTERED. It's a lie. It's a bunch of conservatives who register as democrats in order to spoil the democrat primaries in the state. It's a classic textbook example of the spoiler problem with the typical election system of this country, but taken to the extreme.
again you prove that you know nothing.
Oh you stupid lying fuck.
and stop linking to that mises bullshit and learn some real economics.
The potential for market failure is a reality of all markets, free or not.
Every market has the capacity for failure.
there are these things, called elections, where you can correct politicians who you dont like.
you can even hold special ones to impeach or recall if it's serious enough.
no, it would have more to do with it being effectively a conviction and punishment without due process let alone accusation.
I'm beginning to think you are having a stroke, your lack of context and knowledge of definitions is so striking.
that or you just suffer from diarrhea of the mouth, issuing random phrases you heard once.
I find your knowledge of the soviets extremely....lacking.
well you've guaranteed that nothing you ever say will be worth paying attention to.
So by your definition that is no such thing as a European. Or Asian. and only one or two countries of Africans.
ROFLMAO.
If ever there was an obvious shill.
and?
because something made it melt when it otherwise would likely last another 10000 years.
that something is warmer temperatures.
only on the topic of global warming is the stereotypically abysmal quality of science reporting of major media ignored and their statements treated like the absolute Gospel of what every scientist involved has ever believed, ever.
here's a clue: news reporters != scientists
so just cause they say it, doesnt mean the scientific community is saying it.
he'll ignore your post because he's paid to not pay attention to factual statements.
so what do your models say?
how do you explain the sharply rising CO2 levels compared to the historical rate of increase?
the increasing temperatures?
oh thats right.
you cant.
cause you dont have anything but bullshit, since all the actual science is over here.
call it religion all you want, but until you get some science and basic facts on your side, there's only one of us subscribing to a religion based on faith instead of observational and testable facts. and it aint us.
that's an awful long post.
too bad its all bullshit.
such a waste of time and effort.
-no one is asking to give politicians "unlimited power to regulate every aspect of your life"
-lots of people, far smarter than you, have already investigated, tested, and evaluated all the various natural process candidates.
-no one is saying we need to get below 100ppm CO2
-you ask for scientific evidence, when there are already tens of thousands of scientific reports and papers and findings already published.
-actually all of the observations DO support the theory. in fact they are the basis of it.
-actually all of the satellite data DOES support it.
-funny you mention the "adjustments". all the adjustments made actually lower the amount of apparent warming. it's not adjusted to match the theory, its adjusted to account for changes in instruments over the years, or location, or other factors. yeah, that's right. without the adjustments, the apparent amount of warming would be 20% higher.. this may be a shock to you, but a thermometer int he sun will read a higher temperature than one in the shade just a few inches away. so that way all the data is on the same baseline.
-nope, the models havent failed.
seriously, just fuck off.
your tropes are so tired and out of date, its getting boring repeatedly rebutting them every day.
you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein. Or more accurately, several thousand Einsteins.
(and seriously, who modded that bullshit insightful?)
Oh i dont know....
Maybe because of the shelfs extreme long stability resulting from the relative climate stability of hte past tens of thousands of years, such stability in fact that if only natural processes were at work the planet would be slightly cooling at the moment? Just an educated guess.
Fuck off troll.
geological timescales when talking about the loss of an ice shelf and the reason for it is an irrelevant misdirection.
so proud of it you posted under AC?
sock puppet number 3!
rs79, crashmariks other sock puppet with the same claims, and the same inability to distinguish between sea ice and land ice.
8 inches in the past century.