Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.
The valid comparison isn't looking for RWNJ's who want to take guns away. The comparison should be with those who oppose background checks, licensing, training, and preventing purchases that seek to avoid existing gun laws. what's the refrain? oh yes: "we have enough gun control laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have" Except if that was true, they'd stop blocking said enforcement at every turn.
Almost no one wants to actually "take them away". That is the extreme position, but if you get to paint with jumbo sized brush, then I get to paint all persons on the right as gun fetishists who view guns as a fashion accessory rather than a tool, and who all oppose such common sense simple rules as "preventing criminals and mentally ill from obtaining weapons", "knowing how to handle a weapon", "having some sort of proof of the above". And of course, the afore mentioned dodging of the rules.
But of course that isn't every rightwinger, those proposals enjoy broad support across the political spectrum, generally > 75-80%.
But hey, let's just say "its all the democrats faults", while ignoring reality and the very vocal extremists on both sides. It's the intellectually lazy thing to do, which is probably why you proposed it in the first place.
It is completely accurate, simply dumbed down for people who don't know the complete chemical process of metabolizing and utilizing glucose.
To be absolutely clear, the scientific evidence is clear: NO, consuming less sugar/carbs/glucose does NOT impair tumor growth, NOR does consuming more speed it up. This is established and well known medical information that is only refuted by the likes of NaturalNews and other crank, pseudoscientific purveyors of misinformation.
From Mayo Clinic and other actual medical cancer studies:
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
obviously the real story is how the sugar industry exposed the biased research the NIH was doing, and was simply working to preserve the scientists intregrity in the face of the research they were paid to find.
I covered this before. Half of your "facts" are wrong. They absolutely did switch over racism.
You ignore and leave out many salient facts of history in order to make a deceptive point based on the names of the parties, while ignoring actual history and what the parties actually stood for..
Back then, it was the Radical Republicans who were the liberals. It was the Democrats who were the conservatives, who resisted change and progress. That is the script that got flipped in between the 1860's and the 1960's.
And no, Republicans didn't lead the charge in the 1960's: Opposition to civil rights was broken down along geographical lines, not political, with nearly all votes against the Civil Rights act coming from Southern congressional delegates, regardless of party affiliation, and all support from non-southern delegates, regardless of party.
It's also worth noting that the Dixiecrats were not Democrats. They were a separate political party, who left the Democratic party precisely because of it's support to Civil Rights, and their opposition to them. It was the last majorly successful third party this nation has seen. Again note: the Dixiecrats were conservative in nature, not liberal, which is why it's not sufficient, and even deceptive, to toss around the party names, while ignoring what they stood for at different points in history, and how they changed.
And it was following Nixon's Southern Strategy the overwhelming majority of southern Democrats and Dixiecrats, again a generally far more conservative demographic of people than democrats in the rest of the country, became Republicans.
And then about halfway through your post switched from deceptive "facts" to outright racist garbage. So no, sorry, you're not insightful.
No they exist, I'm just tired of repeating myself to you.
You want the links?
Check your post history or mine or dave420's or I kan reed's, or any of a number of other people who've taken the time to fix your ignorance in the past.
But we both know you wont do that, cause you're just a troll. you pretend to want information, while using that as a cover to spread your misinformation.
Ignoring your rather simplistic (and wrong) view of science and weather, I'll just say this: California is an easier case to investigate.
Other states are much more dependent on rainfall for their water, and those rain patterns come from many sources. Such as plains states getting systems out of the Rockies, up from the Gulf, down from the Arctic, and even occasionally from the eastern seaboard if a big hurricane or nor'easter rolls in.
But California is different. It's not reliant on multiple sources and patterns for its water supply, and it isn't actually very reliant on rain fall throughout the year. Rather, the majority of California's water supply comes from one predictable source, the Sierra snowpack, in a predictable yearly cycle.
In Cali the snowpack is refreshed every Winter between (roughly) mid-December and April 1st by moisture laden air coming in off the ocean. That snow then melts through the rest of the year, supplying the state with the overwhelming majority of its water.
So while droughts in general are increasing and that is in general attributed to warming, the variability of the weather patterns that supply various areas of the country make pinpointing the source of particular droughts difficult. But because California's cycle is much simpler the backtracking of causes and effects becomes much easier.
And while the winter weather patterns have been there, the air has been dry, unusually dry, leading to almost no snowfall, leading to this horrible drought. So while the state is a very dry state in terms of rainfall and precipitation, the abundance of the snowpack meant they could overcome that and still be able to sustain much agriculture because people are good at engineering and building irrigation canals.
California is rightly proud of the efficacy of its statewide irrigation system (we can debate the pros and cons of the system and its impact on nature and people all day long, but as far getting water to crops, it does its job very well). But that system is still ultimately dependent on the snowpack.
I came across this same BS on Facebook the other day. Bigotry disguising as Psuedo-History.
We have not been at war with Islam since day 1. The Barbary States were but one group if Islamic peoples, specifically a subset of the Ottoman Empire, whom we did not go to war with. Also not involved in that war was Persia, the greater middle east, southeast asia, or any of a hsot of them nations that also were and are Islamic. Further our own actual declarations of war against the Barbary States, and our diplomatic actions and peace treaties afterward all made it abundantly clear and repeatedly stated that the conflict was NOT one with Islam. And we even won that war with the help of Muslims, including Barbers.
Our President's, both Adams and Jefferson, even took part in Islamic Religious rituals during meetings with Islamic abassadors and representatives (after all, POTUS is considered chief diplomat). Can you imagine of a modern POTUS did that?
So anyway, once again you prove you are simply a troll.
So then you are of the opinion that the Peoples' Democratic Republic of North Korea really is democratic? After all, it's right there in the name, so it must be true!
Monopolies can be created by regulation. But that is not the only way, nor the chief or natural way. Monopolies are a natural product of an unregulated free market.
For the topic at hand, Comcast has what it has because of deregulation. So yes it is a result of government actions, just not in the way you mean. And the way to fix it -IS- regulation.
People like to talk about an appeal to authority? THAT is an appeal to authority. Eisenhower said a did a lot of good things. But that doesn't mean he was right all the time, even within the same speech. Besides, his comments didn't mean what you apparently think they did.
Let's get some context:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
So he's talking and warning about research with pre-ordained results. And about people who keep the spigot flowing just to line their pockets. Which is why there are safeguards, ethics panels, and the like. Research with pre-ordained results (where money is spent for the outcome, rather than the act of research) is generally quickly sniffed out and smited. And given the state of scientific research funding in this country, as say compared to the military industrial complex, it seems we've heeded his warning quite well, and been largely successful the attempt.
Also, Eisenhower and Nixon both most definitely would (as long as we're ascribing values to dead President's) still be supportive of the modern EPA. From the same Eisenhower speed, right after the scientific elite warning:
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Currently there is a limit to the waterways the EPA can regulate under the Clean Water Act. The problem is this is an arbitrary and illogical limit. Does chemical waste magically not flow downstream into the waterways the EPA does regulate and the public uses? No. Therefore the expansion the EPA proposed is in fact logical and the right thing to do. And I'd wager both Nixon and Eisenhower would support such a move.
In fact there are towns and cities who have closed loop water supplies
The Republicans don't know the first thing about science. Though truthfully that applies to most politicians, the difference being that one side is at least willing to listen to scientists as experts, rather than assert that they have a right to the data so they can personally review and comment on it despite their thorough lack of qualifications.
The GOP chiefly understands the scientific method as a 5 step recipe they learned in 2nd grade, as evidenced by every time they talk about "the scientific method", such as when they try to impugn scientific research they don't like "because it didn't follow the scientific method". The scientific method they learned in 2nd grade is not a recipe that you can just take, add researcher, stir, wait 50 minutes, and out pops Science. It has been vastly oversimplified, and in their inability to go further and realize that that is NOT the end of the knowledge road, their ignorance holds them back from actual understanding.
It's like if they once learned that 2+2=4. Then down the road someone told them that 1+1+1+1 also =4. And their response is "uh uh, no way, that's wrong. Only 2+2=4".
An ignorant blind troll who does little more than repeatedly spread the same misinformation again and again, without regard and with complete blindness to all facts that might solve your ignorance.
Also, as far as the EPA director surely you realize that the head of an agency is far more likely to be chiefly an administrator/manager than a down-in-the-trenches researcher. once again you demonstrate your ignorance.
1: No they don't. 2: Just because they (and other journals) charge for access to their journals doesn't mean the data or papers aren't available in other ways. Many scientists' work, both paper and research, is publicly available, regardless of the journal it's published in. The chief things a journal provides is distribution, curation, and publicity (in the sense of alerting the wider world, not in any sort of negative connotation). In this way the researcher doesn't have to worry about distribution, and people interested don't have to directly contact the researcher.
Q: Why are they adjusting data? A: Because you need a common frame of reference. Say a measuring station was located in a park. Then a tree grew. The instrument went from being in full sun to being in full shade. So the readings from AT (After Tree) are not directly comparable to the readings from BT (Before Tree). Or say the instrument went from being in a park in a valley to now being on top of a hill, 1000 feet higher in elevation.
That's why adjustments are made, so that the readings all have a common point of reference.
Also note that WITHOUT the adjustments the data would show 20% MORE WARMING. That's right, the adjustments to the raw data you are so worried about, actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data record.
Now...you tell me, just what qualifications does an aerospace engineer have that would make his climate research as valid as an actual climate scientists?
Or do you think that before your operation to remove a brain tumor, you should double check your neurosurgeon's opinion with a geologist?
the only people whose opinions matter are other scientists with the relevant background knowledge and experience. and they chiefly already have access to the data, whether its public or not, and most research already is publicly available or available on request to researchers.
the idea that it is not is the big lie behind these bills. many of the data that isn't is data such as that for medical research, which by its very nature (being patient data) must be confidential.
but then there's another side to this as well: ok. its publicly available....now what are you going to do with it?
the vast majority of scientific research is already publicly available, but that is largely completely irrelevant as the only people whose input on it actually matters is scientists who can comprehend it and comment (re: peer review) on it intelligently. a good illustration of this is when Andy Shafly (he of the idiotic Conservapeadia) repeatedly demanded "the raw data" from Richard Lenksi's long term E. Coli project so that he (with no knowledge or relevant scientific background) could "confirm" Lenski's results.
this is just more smokescreen from the GOP designed to appeal to an ignorant base. it sounds good to the ignorant, until you dig into it and think about it for more than a fleeting second or two, and compare it to the actual facts of reality.
yeah.... if you witness a murder or other illegal acts, your contract binding you to silence loses all weight.
as for the drone strike, it wasnt a happy coincidence, it was a targeted assassination of an individual, done in the full knowledge of his citizenship, and outside of any active combat.
Make no mistake: the guy WAS a terrorist. i'll even say he absolutely deserved to die.
But that doesnt give you, the President, or anyone else the power to simply bypass the Constitution, Due Process, and the basic rights granted to all American Citizens, including those we'd very much like to see dead. The very idea should turn the stomach of every American citizen.
The GOP is so hopped up fighting mad and ready to impeach Obama? THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD USE.
But they don't. And they won't. Because they actually support the doctrine.
As I've said before: Most of the complaints of the GOP and Fox are manufactured bullshit meant for mass consumption of their voting base. The real issues, the real problems that should be held against the President, like this one, they don't actually care about and/or actively support.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.
The valid comparison isn't looking for RWNJ's who want to take guns away.
The comparison should be with those who oppose background checks, licensing, training, and preventing purchases that seek to avoid existing gun laws. what's the refrain? oh yes: "we have enough gun control laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have" Except if that was true, they'd stop blocking said enforcement at every turn.
Almost no one wants to actually "take them away". That is the extreme position, but if you get to paint with jumbo sized brush, then I get to paint all persons on the right as gun fetishists who view guns as a fashion accessory rather than a tool, and who all oppose such common sense simple rules as "preventing criminals and mentally ill from obtaining weapons", "knowing how to handle a weapon", "having some sort of proof of the above". And of course, the afore mentioned dodging of the rules.
But of course that isn't every rightwinger, those proposals enjoy broad support across the political spectrum, generally > 75-80%.
But hey, let's just say "its all the democrats faults", while ignoring reality and the very vocal extremists on both sides.
It's the intellectually lazy thing to do, which is probably why you proposed it in the first place.
It is completely accurate, simply dumbed down for people who don't know the complete chemical process of metabolizing and utilizing glucose.
To be absolutely clear, the scientific evidence is clear: NO, consuming less sugar/carbs/glucose does NOT impair tumor growth, NOR does consuming more speed it up. This is established and well known medical information that is only refuted by the likes of NaturalNews and other crank, pseudoscientific purveyors of misinformation.
From Mayo Clinic and other actual medical cancer studies:
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
obviously the real story is how the sugar industry exposed the biased research the NIH was doing, and was simply working to preserve the scientists intregrity in the face of the research they were paid to find.
Yep, when you fear for your life, seconds matter.
Best not to ask questions or be sure of the situation first.
Shoot first.
Just ask Theodore Wafer.
Or Easton MacDonald.
I covered this before. Half of your "facts" are wrong.
They absolutely did switch over racism.
You ignore and leave out many salient facts of history in order to make a deceptive point based on the names of the parties, while ignoring actual history and what the parties actually stood for..
Back then, it was the Radical Republicans who were the liberals.
It was the Democrats who were the conservatives, who resisted change and progress.
That is the script that got flipped in between the 1860's and the 1960's.
And no, Republicans didn't lead the charge in the 1960's: Opposition to civil rights was broken down along geographical lines, not political, with nearly all votes against the Civil Rights act coming from Southern congressional delegates, regardless of party affiliation, and all support from non-southern delegates, regardless of party.
It's also worth noting that the Dixiecrats were not Democrats. They were a separate political party, who left the Democratic party precisely because of it's support to Civil Rights, and their opposition to them. It was the last majorly successful third party this nation has seen. Again note: the Dixiecrats were conservative in nature, not liberal, which is why it's not sufficient, and even deceptive, to toss around the party names, while ignoring what they stood for at different points in history, and how they changed.
And it was following Nixon's Southern Strategy the overwhelming majority of southern Democrats and Dixiecrats, again a generally far more conservative demographic of people than democrats in the rest of the country, became Republicans.
And then about halfway through your post switched from deceptive "facts" to outright racist garbage.
So no, sorry, you're not insightful.
Bingo.
No they exist, I'm just tired of repeating myself to you.
You want the links?
Check your post history or mine or dave420's or I kan reed's, or any of a number of other people who've taken the time to fix your ignorance in the past.
But we both know you wont do that, cause you're just a troll.
you pretend to want information, while using that as a cover to spread your misinformation.
Amen, brother.
Ignoring your rather simplistic (and wrong) view of science and weather, I'll just say this: California is an easier case to investigate.
Other states are much more dependent on rainfall for their water, and those rain patterns come from many sources. Such as plains states getting systems out of the Rockies, up from the Gulf, down from the Arctic, and even occasionally from the eastern seaboard if a big hurricane or nor'easter rolls in.
But California is different. It's not reliant on multiple sources and patterns for its water supply, and it isn't actually very reliant on rain fall throughout the year.
Rather, the majority of California's water supply comes from one predictable source, the Sierra snowpack, in a predictable yearly cycle.
In Cali the snowpack is refreshed every Winter between (roughly) mid-December and April 1st by moisture laden air coming in off the ocean. That snow then melts through the rest of the year, supplying the state with the overwhelming majority of its water.
So while droughts in general are increasing and that is in general attributed to warming, the variability of the weather patterns that supply various areas of the country make pinpointing the source of particular droughts difficult. But because California's cycle is much simpler the backtracking of causes and effects becomes much easier.
And while the winter weather patterns have been there, the air has been dry, unusually dry, leading to almost no snowfall, leading to this horrible drought. So while the state is a very dry state in terms of rainfall and precipitation, the abundance of the snowpack meant they could overcome that and still be able to sustain much agriculture because people are good at engineering and building irrigation canals.
California is rightly proud of the efficacy of its statewide irrigation system (we can debate the pros and cons of the system and its impact on nature and people all day long, but as far getting water to crops, it does its job very well). But that system is still ultimately dependent on the snowpack.
I came across this same BS on Facebook the other day.
Bigotry disguising as Psuedo-History.
We have not been at war with Islam since day 1. The Barbary States were but one group if Islamic peoples, specifically a subset of the Ottoman Empire, whom we did not go to war with. Also not involved in that war was Persia, the greater middle east, southeast asia, or any of a hsot of them nations that also were and are Islamic. Further our own actual declarations of war against the Barbary States, and our diplomatic actions and peace treaties afterward all made it abundantly clear and repeatedly stated that the conflict was NOT one with Islam. And we even won that war with the help of Muslims, including Barbers.
Our President's, both Adams and Jefferson, even took part in Islamic Religious rituals during meetings with Islamic abassadors and representatives (after all, POTUS is considered chief diplomat). Can you imagine of a modern POTUS did that?
So anyway, once again you prove you are simply a troll.
So then you are of the opinion that the Peoples' Democratic Republic of North Korea really is democratic?
After all, it's right there in the name, so it must be true!
Sorry. Wrong.
Monopolies can be created by regulation.
But that is not the only way, nor the chief or natural way.
Monopolies are a natural product of an unregulated free market.
For the topic at hand, Comcast has what it has because of deregulation.
So yes it is a result of government actions, just not in the way you mean.
And the way to fix it -IS- regulation.
People like to talk about an appeal to authority? THAT is an appeal to authority.
Eisenhower said a did a lot of good things. But that doesn't mean he was right all the time, even within the same speech.
Besides, his comments didn't mean what you apparently think they did.
Let's get some context:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
So he's talking and warning about research with pre-ordained results. And about people who keep the spigot flowing just to line their pockets. Which is why there are safeguards, ethics panels, and the like. Research with pre-ordained results (where money is spent for the outcome, rather than the act of research) is generally quickly sniffed out and smited. And given the state of scientific research funding in this country, as say compared to the military industrial complex, it seems we've heeded his warning quite well, and been largely successful the attempt.
Also, Eisenhower and Nixon both most definitely would (as long as we're ascribing values to dead President's) still be supportive of the modern EPA.
From the same Eisenhower speed, right after the scientific elite warning:
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Currently there is a limit to the waterways the EPA can regulate under the Clean Water Act. The problem is this is an arbitrary and illogical limit. Does chemical waste magically not flow downstream into the waterways the EPA does regulate and the public uses? No. Therefore the expansion the EPA proposed is in fact logical and the right thing to do. And I'd wager both Nixon and Eisenhower would support such a move.
In fact there are towns and cities who have closed loop water supplies
The Republicans don't know the first thing about science. Though truthfully that applies to most politicians, the difference being that one side is at least willing to listen to scientists as experts, rather than assert that they have a right to the data so they can personally review and comment on it despite their thorough lack of qualifications.
The GOP chiefly understands the scientific method as a 5 step recipe they learned in 2nd grade, as evidenced by every time they talk about "the scientific method", such as when they try to impugn scientific research they don't like "because it didn't follow the scientific method". The scientific method they learned in 2nd grade is not a recipe that you can just take, add researcher, stir, wait 50 minutes, and out pops Science. It has been vastly oversimplified, and in their inability to go further and realize that that is NOT the end of the knowledge road, their ignorance holds them back from actual understanding.
It's like if they once learned that 2+2=4.
Then down the road someone told them that 1+1+1+1 also =4.
And their response is "uh uh, no way, that's wrong. Only 2+2=4".
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art...
You are a troll,
An ignorant blind troll who does little more than repeatedly spread the same misinformation again and again, without regard and with complete blindness to all facts that might solve your ignorance.
Also, as far as the EPA director surely you realize that the head of an agency is far more likely to be chiefly an administrator/manager than a down-in-the-trenches researcher. once again you demonstrate your ignorance.
1: No they don't.
2: Just because they (and other journals) charge for access to their journals doesn't mean the data or papers aren't available in other ways. Many scientists' work, both paper and research, is publicly available, regardless of the journal it's published in. The chief things a journal provides is distribution, curation, and publicity (in the sense of alerting the wider world, not in any sort of negative connotation). In this way the researcher doesn't have to worry about distribution, and people interested don't have to directly contact the researcher.
but it must be true!
because numbers!
that's what you rational people use right?
Numbers! Big scary numbers!
Q: Why is it hard to get?
A: It's not. http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
Q: Why are they adjusting data?
A: Because you need a common frame of reference. Say a measuring station was located in a park. Then a tree grew. The instrument went from being in full sun to being in full shade. So the readings from AT (After Tree) are not directly comparable to the readings from BT (Before Tree). Or say the instrument went from being in a park in a valley to now being on top of a hill, 1000 feet higher in elevation.
That's why adjustments are made, so that the readings all have a common point of reference.
Also note that WITHOUT the adjustments the data would show 20% MORE WARMING.
That's right, the adjustments to the raw data you are so worried about, actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data record.
Now...you tell me, just what qualifications does an aerospace engineer have that would make his climate research as valid as an actual climate scientists?
Or do you think that before your operation to remove a brain tumor, you should double check your neurosurgeon's opinion with a geologist?
It's not bloody secret you bloody ignorant troll.
That's why this entire bill is a non starter.
It's a pile of manure designed to appeal to the ignorant GOP base, like you.
who cares what random people think?
the only people whose opinions matter are other scientists with the relevant background knowledge and experience.
and they chiefly already have access to the data, whether its public or not, and most research already is publicly available or available on request to researchers.
it usually already is publicly available.
the idea that it is not is the big lie behind these bills.
many of the data that isn't is data such as that for medical research, which by its very nature (being patient data) must be confidential.
but then there's another side to this as well:
ok. its publicly available....now what are you going to do with it?
the vast majority of scientific research is already publicly available, but that is largely completely irrelevant as the only people whose input on it actually matters is scientists who can comprehend it and comment (re: peer review) on it intelligently. a good illustration of this is when Andy Shafly (he of the idiotic Conservapeadia) repeatedly demanded "the raw data" from Richard Lenksi's long term E. Coli project so that he (with no knowledge or relevant scientific background) could "confirm" Lenski's results.
this is just more smokescreen from the GOP designed to appeal to an ignorant base.
it sounds good to the ignorant, until you dig into it and think about it for more than a fleeting second or two, and compare it to the actual facts of reality.
Yes. 11% of the country voted for the republicans last election, versus ~10% for democrats, in an election with one of the lowest turnouts on record.
Even for an off year it was a low turnout.
That's hardly indicative of a strong mandate or strong base.
yeah....
if you witness a murder or other illegal acts, your contract binding you to silence loses all weight.
as for the drone strike, it wasnt a happy coincidence, it was a targeted assassination of an individual, done in the full knowledge of his citizenship, and outside of any active combat.
Make no mistake: the guy WAS a terrorist. i'll even say he absolutely deserved to die.
But that doesnt give you, the President, or anyone else the power to simply bypass the Constitution, Due Process, and the basic rights granted to all American Citizens, including those we'd very much like to see dead. The very idea should turn the stomach of every American citizen.
The GOP is so hopped up fighting mad and ready to impeach Obama?
THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD USE.
But they don't.
And they won't.
Because they actually support the doctrine.
As I've said before: Most of the complaints of the GOP and Fox are manufactured bullshit meant for mass consumption of their voting base.
The real issues, the real problems that should be held against the President, like this one, they don't actually care about and/or actively support.
Because whistleblower protections in this country in general, and particularly under this president, are a joke.
That's why.