1: a: no it doesnt show that, and b) being packed to the tents doesnt mean the comparison was false. the aerial view is revealing, and real. as are the mass transit ridership numbers.
2) you got one!
3) reading wikileaks is illegal for anyone working for the government.
4) didnt happen. she wasnt given the questions, given that there was no list of questions, as it was a townhall. Specifically, it was a townhall being held in Flint, Michigan. And the campagin was told that one of the questions would likely be about the Flint water crisis. Now I dont know aobut you, but it doesnt take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that if we're having a meeting in Flint, during the water crisis, tht oneof the fucking questions is going to be about the fucking water crisis. That isnt a rigged debate, that's a "no shit sherlock".
Bingo. That right there. All that needs be said to prove there is zero reason to listen to your bullshit, to prove you are jn fact questikning the science, that you do in dact dispute it. Be gone shill the game is up.
they wouldn't be able to get any research grants and many of them would be out of a job with no significant marketable skills
They are scientific researchers. That is their skill. They would perform research jn some other area. We arent talking about training coal miners to work IT. The underlying science is a combination of ohysics mathmatics chemistry etc. already having a fundamental foundation in those discoplines, to say they have marketable skills only further reveals you own level of ignorance.
Again, Despite all claims to the contrary, you clearly have no idea how research funding actually works. Researchers are paid for the act of research, not based oin the results. You have no legitimate arguments, claims, logic, or substantive evidence. Ie, your posts are bullshit.
And coal used to be 40%, and silar 0.1%. Who gives a shit? Its not even relevent. Coal is mature with no new buildouts, and a single miner can today produce what it used to take 100 to pull put of the ground. How can you shills seriously argue against it on the basis that it provides too many jobs?
Sorry but its ignorant to say what you just said. The gov loaned out X amount of dollars. The gov then recieved back an amount larger than X in loan repayments. Ergo, profit. Just like any other loan with an interest rate larger than zero.
3%. Thats the number if failed companies. More than offset by thenother 97% of companies that succeeded jnder the loan program. The loan program made a profit for the government. So you ignorant shill talking point can gtfo.
Slashdot Mirror
1: a: no it doesnt show that, and b) being packed to the tents doesnt mean the comparison was false. the aerial view is revealing, and real. as are the mass transit ridership numbers.
2) you got one!
3) reading wikileaks is illegal for anyone working for the government.
4) didnt happen. she wasnt given the questions, given that there was no list of questions, as it was a townhall.
Specifically, it was a townhall being held in Flint, Michigan.
And the campagin was told that one of the questions would likely be about the Flint water crisis.
Now I dont know aobut you, but it doesnt take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that if we're having a meeting in Flint, during the water crisis, tht oneof the fucking questions is going to be about the fucking water crisis. That isnt a rigged debate, that's a "no shit sherlock".
hardly: http://i.imgur.com/WMTcC1h.jpg
"but the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find"
thats why they regularly publish total bullshit, especially when it comes to science, especially when it comes to global warming?
see many batboy magazines as sources at wiki?
cause thats the level the daily mail is at.
Bingo. That right there. All that needs be said to prove there is zero reason to listen to your bullshit, to prove you are jn fact questikning the science, that you do in dact dispute it. Be gone shill the game is up.
"Im not questioning the science.
Im just saying rhe scientists are financially motivated liars.
Thats TOTALLY different.
And also TOTALLY unlike the energy industry."
Bullshit and projection
Bullshit
Then why do insist in making shit up
Really need edit button
they wouldn't be able to get any research grants and many of them would be out of a job with no significant marketable skills
They are scientific researchers. That is their skill. They would perform research jn some other area. We arent talking about training coal miners to work IT. The underlying science is a combination of ohysics mathmatics chemistry etc. already having a fundamental foundation in those discoplines, to say they have marketable skills only further reveals you own level of ignorance.
Ie, another post that is total bullahit
Again, Despite all claims to the contrary, you clearly have no idea how research funding actually works. Researchers are paid for the act of research, not based oin the results. You have no legitimate arguments, claims, logic, or substantive evidence. Ie, your posts are bullshit.
I have said nothing "against the science of climate change".
Bull. Shit.
Not this bullshit again
Apples and oranges
Who needs clean air?
F that noise, right?
Wow. That was pathetic. i mean whatever theyre paying you, its eay too much.
And coal used to be 40%, and silar 0.1%. Who gives a shit? Its not even relevent. Coal is mature with no new buildouts, and a single miner can today produce what it used to take 100 to pull put of the ground. How can you shills seriously argue against it on the basis that it provides too many jobs?
Please. We dont need an uber trump. The regular one is bad enough.
Judging by the quantity of posts they must not be paying you very much for these bullshill posts you keep making.
Judging by the quantity of post you seem to be required to make the paint you very much with his bullshill posts.
Flatlined but nonzero would indicate that they have as many workers ad they need in manufacturing.
Coal is artificially cheap. Those regulatoons you decry serve to de-externalize costs the jndustry had been able to ignoee for decades.
Sorry but its ignorant to say what you just said. The gov loaned out X amount of dollars. The gov then recieved back an amount larger than X in loan repayments. Ergo, profit. Just like any other loan with an interest rate larger than zero.
3%. Thats the number if failed companies. More than offset by thenother 97% of companies that succeeded jnder the loan program. The loan program made a profit for the government. So you ignorant shill talking point can gtfo.