You can argue its 'political'. But that would be a stupid argument.
Mann and his colleagues at RealClimate certainly have very strong opinions about the scientific arguments related to climate change. But they almost never discuss the political issues.
And don't give me that 'everything is politics' crap. By that measure People magazine is political.
A peanut-sized piece of the meteor that streaked across Wisconsin skies Wednesday night has been discovered near Livingston in the southwest corner of the state, according to UW-Madison scientists.
If you RTA, you will see it IS voluntary. Schools need not do it, and you can have your kid not attend it if they do.
Southworth doesn't actually want to sue anyone. He just wants to make it more likely that school districts will drop sex ed altogether - by making school admins afraid, or getting parents upset.
I actually think that this is a good measure at heart. Rather than jumping in on sensationalism, they are saying that basically "We just want to get justifiable evidence before committing any more resources"...
Nobody (well, nobody of significance) denies that we are having an impact on the climate. What is in question is the amount of impact that we are having. The fact of the matter is that we have very little knowledge about the driving forces of the climate. We have so little, that we cannot predict where the climate would be without our impact.
Nice list of stawmen there. Are you planning on having a bonfire?
Nobody (at least no reputable climate scientist) is saying that 'this snowstorm is due to global warming'. Or that this snowstorm 'proves' global warming.
It is certainly true that the latest snowstorms across the country do not disprove global warming.
So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.
In other words the climate scientists didn't get the science wrong.
How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?
People would stop eating corn products.
Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.
1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.
Insurance companies hiring private investigators to spy on their clients is fairly common in Canada, where the payout looks like it's going to be long-term or the client seems a little suspicious.
Did they hire Sen. Bill Frist to make the diagnosis?
So basically the subpoena was prepared long before Obama and sent out before he actually got to matters at hand, and when EFF received it and inquired about it specifically, it was promptly dismissed by then-Obama's DoJ?
But... but... where's the left-wing conspiracy?
We infiltrated the Bush administration just so we could cover our tracks.
- the vast left-wing conspiracy.
As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them.
How psychic of you! Care to explain just what these horrible acts of intimidation will be? Or are you just making shit up?
Disagreeing with someone is not 'intolerance'. Calling an act of discrimination 'discrimination' is not intolerance, its a statment of fact. Actually discriminating against a class of people, e.g. taking away their right to marry, is intolerance.
Please go back to kindergarten and learn the difference.
Cannot have such a rule. The anti-gay(-marriage) people will be quick to tell you the Constitution does not forbid discrimination based on sexual preference. Indeed, you won't find the words "sexual preference" or "sexuality" anywhere in the document.
Also, the Constitution does not specifically mention red-heads, but I've never heard anyone use that as a reason to discriminate against them.
Slashdot Mirror
C8H18 + 17 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 18 H20
http://www.altfuels.org/backgrnd/fuelchem.html
Guys, the hockey stick graph has been proven to be, at best, a very narrow view of the data, and at worse, a hoax.
and here's the link to prove it ....
um, its here somewhere.....
I'll get back to you on that.
Mann and his colleagues at RealClimate certainly have very strong opinions about the scientific arguments related to climate change. But they almost never discuss the political issues.
And don't give me that 'everything is politics' crap. By that measure People magazine is political.
Is it OK for an employer to discriminate on the basis of this admittedly horrifying behavior?
Otter: "Germans?"
Boon: " Forget it, he's rolling. "
Phil Jones admits HE CANT FIND WARMING.
Its funny how some people keep repeating this falsehood. Its almost as if they were deliberately misinterpreting what he said to suit their own agenda
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/article_d1877c36-4997-11df-a968-001cc4c03286.html
If you RTA, you will see it IS voluntary. Schools need not do it, and you can have your kid not attend it if they do.
Southworth doesn't actually want to sue anyone. He just wants to make it more likely that school districts will drop sex ed altogether - by making school admins afraid, or getting parents upset.
Because no information is the best sex ed of all!
Clearly all knowledge leads to Bad Things (C).
Hide the apples from the Tree of Knowledge! Or our children shall fall into Sin!
From your friends at the NSA
My brain hurts! - Gumby
I actually think that this is a good measure at heart. Rather than jumping in on sensationalism, they are saying that basically "We just want to get justifiable evidence before committing any more resources"... Nobody (well, nobody of significance) denies that we are having an impact on the climate. What is in question is the amount of impact that we are having. The fact of the matter is that we have very little knowledge about the driving forces of the climate. We have so little, that we cannot predict where the climate would be without our impact.
The IPCC says you are wrong.
Nobody (at least no reputable climate scientist) is saying that 'this snowstorm is due to global warming'. Or that this snowstorm 'proves' global warming.
It is certainly true that the latest snowstorms across the country do not disprove global warming.
Phil Jones has pretty much admitted most of the data is BS and nobody knows what it really means.
He also said that your mother was a hampster, and that logic is wreath of flowers that smell bad.
At least in the sense of "I'm completely distorting what he said to whatever I want."
Real Climate says
In other words the climate scientists didn't get the science wrong.
People would stop eating corn products.
Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.
Dead people can sue?
So "The System Worked", uhh, how?
1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.
Exactly, the system did work - for the lawyers.
You know, the ones who created the system.
An eye for an eye, an unjust harassment at the border for an unjust harassment at the border.
or something like that.
If I was in that situation, I would be way more distracted by trying to figure out how to respond to such a stupid PHB.
On the coasts, I think they teach kids the temperature has never been a degree above or below where it is today, etc etc.
Um, I grew up on the East coast. This is just plain bullshit. Like everything else in your post.
Obviously you didn't get such a 'good WI education'.
Insurance companies hiring private investigators to spy on their clients is fairly common in Canada, where the payout looks like it's going to be long-term or the client seems a little suspicious.
Did they hire Sen. Bill Frist to make the diagnosis?
So basically the subpoena was prepared long before Obama and sent out before he actually got to matters at hand, and when EFF received it and inquired about it specifically, it was promptly dismissed by then-Obama's DoJ?
But... but... where's the left-wing conspiracy?
We infiltrated the Bush administration just so we could cover our tracks.
- the vast left-wing conspiracy.
As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.
In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them.
How psychic of you! Care to explain just what these horrible acts of intimidation will be? Or are you just making shit up?
Please go back to kindergarten and learn the difference.
Cannot have such a rule. The anti-gay(-marriage) people will be quick to tell you the Constitution does not forbid discrimination based on sexual preference. Indeed, you won't find the words "sexual preference" or "sexuality" anywhere in the document.
Also, the Constitution does not specifically mention red-heads, but I've never heard anyone use that as a reason to discriminate against them.