categorically false. a silver or gold dollar from 1789 to 1917 essentially had a constant value except in gold rush or silver rush towns. since 1917 the unitary dollar has lost 98% of its value. or in words the poster can understand, inflation of the dollar over the last ninety years was 50 fold.
In many parts of the world, the daily intake of dioxins seems to be at or above the so-called AI)I (acceptable daily intake, 1 or 10 pg/kg body weight) value. However, a proper basis for the determination of TEQs for dioxin congeners is stlli not sufficiently well established; no health risk to the general population emerges from the data of toxicity and tissue concentration in animals. This conclusion is further supported by data from people with enhanced burdens of dioxins as a result of occupational, accidental, or environmental exposures.
Ozone hole has turned out to be a natural phenomena not related CFC. (Never mind the pesky volcano spewing all sorts of ozone-depleting stuff near the damn ozone hole...)
Acid rain -- noone, anywhere, ever even slightly inconvenienced by the "acid rain".
While it is true that smoking can cause lung cancer, you might want to look up the rate of lung cancer in non-smokers...
When I hear things are "staggeringly complex" then I become 100% that policy shouldn't be set by said things.
Never mind Greenland isn't green so that should be a clue that AGW isn't close to being a problem.
And never mind that the major/minor ice ages correlate with precession and nutation of Earth and Moon rather nicely...
And, geez, on a planet where the temp swings from Ice Age to pretty-damn-warm (Roman Empire), one might want to pause and wonder if Man is actually capable of affecting climate.
Uh no -- "Climate Skeptics" are taken seriously because (a) the AGW case lacks any standing and (b) the evidence, when not massaged to death by sins of commission and omission actually supports US.
Not only that, these "found no malfeasance" results are absurd on their face. They DID hide, throw away and improperly manipulate the data. At best they were wrong and at worst it was a deliberate push for AGW (which isn't happening).
If the data had been public, as it should have been, both on the tax and scientific method grounds, these asshats would not have had a chance to bamboozle the public and eat high on the hog trough of public funded science.
You pretentious fascist asshat. I routinely DO NOT CARRY ID. There is NO REASON, in a country based on liberty and freedom, to have ANY ID at all, let alone so a pig can ask you for "Your Papers please".
I'm also a photographer and the absurdity of the "don't photograph" crowd, in violation of First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments is unfathomable to me.
These people had a RIGHT to do what they did. It wasn't a privilege. The gov is clearly in the wrong here.
You might want to look up Debates on the Constitution and First Amendment arguments where anonymity is a bulwark of free speech to deflect intimidation. Additionally we have an Amendment that reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
Contrary to the morons on the Supreme Court and and the latest fascistic thinking, this amendment means what it says. Thus, the Feds ARE restricted to the enumerated powers and everything else is reserved to the States or the People. Thus you have a right to anonymity.
Every other formulation, and I challenge you to provide one, will implicitly or explicitly endorse some form of magical thinking. (Burden of proof always on the person making an assertion)
You are somehow assuming, as a given, that which needs to be proved.
Which just goes to show the ignorance of those in charge. You are aware, of course, that in the practice of medicine, we ROUTINELY, us drugs for purposes that they were not approved. In fact, it is beyond the FDA's purview to in any way restrict the practice of medicine and they are, by law, prevented from doing so.
Thus it is neither immoral nor illegal to market drugs for purposes beyond the FDA's approval. It is obscene that Pfizer was threatened and did not fight this upto the Supreme Court on the grounds that the FDA violated free speech and that the FDA exceeded its authority.
Slashdot Mirror
categorically false. a silver or gold dollar from 1789 to 1917 essentially had a constant value except in gold rush or silver rush towns. since 1917 the unitary dollar has lost 98% of its value. or in words the poster can understand, inflation of the dollar over the last ninety years was 50 fold.
What a load of crap.
Read some Austrian economics.
Uh no -- I quote
In many parts of the world, the daily intake of dioxins
seems to be at or above the so-called AI)I (acceptable
daily intake, 1 or 10 pg/kg body weight) value. However,
a proper basis for the determination of TEQs for dioxin
congeners is stlli not sufficiently well established; no
health risk to the general population emerges from the
data of toxicity and tissue concentration in animals.
This conclusion is further supported by data from people
with enhanced burdens of dioxins as a result of occupational,
accidental, or environmental exposures.
Which in a rational world would be used to throw out ALL their results as the fantasy they are...
Of course THEY should HAVE to do this! It's that pesky thing called the law....
yes. Amongst those of us who understand science the words "Bayesian" and "induction" and "checksum" come to mind...
Isn't the overall behavior by these so-called scientists enough to make one scream "A pox on all your houses".
It's blatant scientific misconduct. Period.
Ozone hole has turned out to be a natural phenomena not related CFC. (Never mind the pesky volcano spewing all sorts of ozone-depleting stuff near the damn ozone hole...)
Acid rain -- noone, anywhere, ever even slightly inconvenienced by the "acid rain".
While it is true that smoking can cause lung cancer, you might want to look up the rate of lung cancer in non-smokers...
Never mind the simple fact that as a PUBLIC SERVANT you have no choice about having to turn over your data by FOIA?
Funny thing that the AGW alarmists never note -- North America, which has almost as many trees now as it did centuries ago, is a net carbon *sink*.
Greenland USED to be green. It is presently covered mostly in ice. Thus, the Agw angle is highly inflated...
Copernicus kiddo, not Kepler...
That paragraph should be reread with particular emphasis on the Little Ice Age....
true. Especially since Co2 is immaterial to global warming since the primary mediator of heat in the atmosphere... wait for it... is WATER!
Which just goes to show you that you have no clue about peer review.
The mainstay of peer review IS demolishing the case brought in the paper, raising objections and sending them back to the drawing board.
And just to finish it all off: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong
When I hear things are "staggeringly complex" then I become 100% that policy shouldn't be set by said things.
Never mind Greenland isn't green so that should be a clue that AGW isn't close to being a problem.
And never mind that the major/minor ice ages correlate with precession and nutation of Earth and Moon rather nicely...
And, geez, on a planet where the temp swings from Ice Age to pretty-damn-warm (Roman Empire), one might want to pause and wonder if Man is actually capable of affecting climate.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html
And the Heartland paper happens to be a model of scientific analysis:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html
See for yourselves....
Uh no -- "Climate Skeptics" are taken seriously because (a) the AGW case lacks any standing and (b) the evidence, when not massaged to death by sins of commission and omission actually supports US.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html
No -- It is in fact the AGW proponents that are shrill and want a god-damn cap-n-trade for a non-existent problem.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html
Not only that, these "found no malfeasance" results are absurd on their face. They DID hide, throw away and improperly manipulate the data. At best they were wrong and at worst it was a deliberate push for AGW (which isn't happening).
If the data had been public, as it should have been, both on the tax and scientific method grounds, these asshats would not have had a chance to bamboozle the public and eat high on the hog trough of public funded science.
You pretentious fascist asshat. I routinely DO NOT CARRY ID. There is NO REASON, in a country based on liberty and freedom, to have ANY ID at all, let alone so a pig can ask you for "Your Papers please".
I'm also a photographer and the absurdity of the "don't photograph" crowd, in violation of First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments is unfathomable to me.
These people had a RIGHT to do what they did. It wasn't a privilege. The gov is clearly in the wrong here.
Have you ever thought that you shouldn't be on the road with machines weighing thousands of pounds? Cycles should have been banned 50 years ago.
You might want to look up Debates on the Constitution and First Amendment arguments where anonymity is a bulwark of free speech to deflect intimidation. Additionally we have an Amendment that reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
Contrary to the morons on the Supreme Court and and the latest fascistic thinking, this amendment means what it says. Thus, the Feds ARE restricted to the enumerated powers and everything else is reserved to the States or the People. Thus you have a right to anonymity.
Actually, not at all a valid question.
Every other formulation, and I challenge you to provide one, will implicitly or explicitly endorse some form of magical thinking. (Burden of proof always on the person making an assertion)
You are somehow assuming, as a given, that which needs to be proved.
Which just goes to show the ignorance of those in charge. You are aware, of course, that in the practice of medicine, we ROUTINELY, us drugs for purposes that they were not approved. In fact, it is beyond the FDA's purview to in any way restrict the practice of medicine and they are, by law, prevented from doing so.
Thus it is neither immoral nor illegal to market drugs for purposes beyond the FDA's approval. It is obscene that Pfizer was threatened and did not fight this upto the Supreme Court on the grounds that the FDA violated free speech and that the FDA exceeded its authority.