Not to mention the amount of Russian oligarch involvement with Trump's business, which he won't cede, causing a massive conflict of interest, which is somehow just peachy.
I don't know if you realised, but you just told everyone how little you know about scientific research, at the same time as trying to use your knowledge of scientific research to make a point. It's rather entertaining for everyone else, but I imagine for you it's somewhat embarrassing. Let me help you for future times you insist on chiming in:
1) Yes, and? Oncologists research cancer, climatologists research the climate. Or should they swap every once in a while to keep you happy? Or is it this particular study? I have news for you - this study is duplicated many times the world over at the end of each year/start of the next. Of course climatologists are going to perform it.
2) Nope. Continued funding relies on society surviving. Extraordinary-payout-massive-awesomeness-funding would come from showing how climate change is not happening, as that will get you a Nobel prize, $1m, tenure wherever you want it, and funding for the rest of your days. Science LOVES upheavals, as that's where fantastic amounts of learning is found
3) Again, not at all. See 2)
4) Not even close. See 2)
The idea of science and scientists you are arguing against is indeed horrific, but as it only exists in your mind and the minds of people similarly disposed to you, you shouldn't worry about it perverting scientific research.
We already saw what happened in Syria - a drought caused a massive shortfall in food production, forcing people into cities. That, along with some political turmoil, destabilised the country, causing the exodus of people (or 'refugees' in common parlance). So you are incorrect. Shocker.
And the sea levels dropped, making more land for wildlife. Your argument is severely limited in scope, which makes it less than useful, and misleading.
Britain agreed to abide by the court's decisions, so no. And not to mention Britain can ignore this decision all it wants, and just pay the fines. The EU won't start bombing London because Westminster doesn't know how to behave.
Even after Britain leaves the EU it will have all the EU's laws which applied to Britain before it left still on the books (as this is the only part of brexit the public have been deemed worthy enough to know). Once that happens, it will take an act of Parliament to repeal this decision.
You don't seem to know your history. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years, and countless wars. Now there is even better trade with the EU, Britain has a loud voice on the global stage (due to its position in the Anglosphere and the EU), and lots of negotiating power due to that. If it leaves the EU it will be a bit player on the side, with precious little to negotiate with (as other countries don't see much value in appeals to history and the greatness of an empire which ceased to be). Again, you are arguing emotion, not fact.
But Britain had a veto so nothing the EU could do could mess Britain over, rendering your entire argument moot. You are arguing from emotion, not logic.
So perceptions of something they don't understand, whipped up in a frothy mess by the tabloids eager to sell confirmation bias to their readership. I don't know how you can mention arrogance and unlikeability with a straight face when Britain has Farage, May, Johnson et al. knocking about. If people are going to vote as if this is some sort of popularity contest, then that's another great demonstration of why referendums are for fools and despots. The assumption that Westminster is competent enough to negotiate a brexit, but not competent enough to leave the EU on its own, is baffling - leavers can't have it both ways. Demanding to leave so we can forge trade deals, even when the bodies in charge of making these trade deals say we should stay in the EU. It's a disgraceful display of hubris and nationalism.
All the examples you can come up with will be bad, as Britain's veto doesn't disappear because you pose a conundrum. Nothing can be foisted on Britain that it didn't agree with. Every time the British government and the EU disagree on something, it's the EU trying to protect Britain and the British government trying to screw it over. Just last week the EU was standing up for the British steel industry while the British PM was trying to undercut it in order to get a favour with the Chinese government. The EU saves Britain from the shortcomings of the FPTP system and the political pandering that comes with it. Every single leave argument boils down to emotion.
You might want to take them with a grain of salt as the initial claim of a European police force is demonstrably not true. The closest thing there is to that is Europol, which:
[...] has no executive powers, and its officials are not entitled to conduct investigations in the member states or to arrest suspects. Europol, in providing support through information exchange, intelligence analysis, expertise, and training, can contribute to the executive measures carried out by the relevant national authorities.
Convenience of argument. It's a lot easier to dismiss criticism if you assume the critic is flatly against the entire idea regardless of how well implemented it is.
China is putting a lot of effort into reducing its emissions. As is the EU. You seem woefully confused about this, to the point you are arguing against your own best interests. How terribly sad.
It has helped, actually. The EU has been trying to get mobile phone operators to treat their customers with some civility (abolishing EU roaming, lowering prices, data protection, etc.). It has been improving for years, and now without the EU there will be next to nothing to stop them getting worse and worse. British regulators will have enough on their hands as it is taking over their local duties from the EU to be capable enough to curtail this. It's not going to be pretty.
We are still dealing with ISIS, so it's too early to judge GWB's presidency, although it's already not exactly looked upon favorably, what with the wars which made no sense, the start of the regular drone attacks, artfully melding religion and presidency, and so on.
The org chart just shows you who reports to whom. It doesn't say anything about waste at all. To assume that more workers = waste can only come about from your personal opinion, so your argument kind of doesn't make any sense...
Your next president is famous for saying how he can grab women by the pussy and no-one can stop him. He denies science. He has secret, private dealings with foreign leaders who are at odds with the US's policies. See - it's not that you criticize, it's having a good enough reason to criticize.
Seeing as you don't know the difference between sea and land ice, one is rather safe to ignore you. Is it too late to get a refund for your science education?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the amount of Russian oligarch involvement with Trump's business, which he won't cede, causing a massive conflict of interest, which is somehow just peachy.
You are confusing "information" with "bullshit". Please don't.
Ride sharing has a specific meaning, and Uber is not it.
I don't know if you realised, but you just told everyone how little you know about scientific research, at the same time as trying to use your knowledge of scientific research to make a point. It's rather entertaining for everyone else, but I imagine for you it's somewhat embarrassing. Let me help you for future times you insist on chiming in:
1) Yes, and? Oncologists research cancer, climatologists research the climate. Or should they swap every once in a while to keep you happy? Or is it this particular study? I have news for you - this study is duplicated many times the world over at the end of each year/start of the next. Of course climatologists are going to perform it.
2) Nope. Continued funding relies on society surviving. Extraordinary-payout-massive-awesomeness-funding would come from showing how climate change is not happening, as that will get you a Nobel prize, $1m, tenure wherever you want it, and funding for the rest of your days. Science LOVES upheavals, as that's where fantastic amounts of learning is found
3) Again, not at all. See 2)
4) Not even close. See 2)
The idea of science and scientists you are arguing against is indeed horrific, but as it only exists in your mind and the minds of people similarly disposed to you, you shouldn't worry about it perverting scientific research.
We already saw what happened in Syria - a drought caused a massive shortfall in food production, forcing people into cities. That, along with some political turmoil, destabilised the country, causing the exodus of people (or 'refugees' in common parlance). So you are incorrect. Shocker.
China is working massively to reduce its emissions. Your point is based on out of date, or just incorrect, information.
And the sea levels dropped, making more land for wildlife. Your argument is severely limited in scope, which makes it less than useful, and misleading.
Britain agreed to abide by the court's decisions, so no. And not to mention Britain can ignore this decision all it wants, and just pay the fines. The EU won't start bombing London because Westminster doesn't know how to behave.
Even after Britain leaves the EU it will have all the EU's laws which applied to Britain before it left still on the books (as this is the only part of brexit the public have been deemed worthy enough to know). Once that happens, it will take an act of Parliament to repeal this decision.
You don't seem to know your history. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years, and countless wars. Now there is even better trade with the EU, Britain has a loud voice on the global stage (due to its position in the Anglosphere and the EU), and lots of negotiating power due to that. If it leaves the EU it will be a bit player on the side, with precious little to negotiate with (as other countries don't see much value in appeals to history and the greatness of an empire which ceased to be). Again, you are arguing emotion, not fact.
But Britain had a veto so nothing the EU could do could mess Britain over, rendering your entire argument moot. You are arguing from emotion, not logic.
So perceptions of something they don't understand, whipped up in a frothy mess by the tabloids eager to sell confirmation bias to their readership. I don't know how you can mention arrogance and unlikeability with a straight face when Britain has Farage, May, Johnson et al. knocking about. If people are going to vote as if this is some sort of popularity contest, then that's another great demonstration of why referendums are for fools and despots. The assumption that Westminster is competent enough to negotiate a brexit, but not competent enough to leave the EU on its own, is baffling - leavers can't have it both ways. Demanding to leave so we can forge trade deals, even when the bodies in charge of making these trade deals say we should stay in the EU. It's a disgraceful display of hubris and nationalism.
All the examples you can come up with will be bad, as Britain's veto doesn't disappear because you pose a conundrum. Nothing can be foisted on Britain that it didn't agree with. Every time the British government and the EU disagree on something, it's the EU trying to protect Britain and the British government trying to screw it over. Just last week the EU was standing up for the British steel industry while the British PM was trying to undercut it in order to get a favour with the Chinese government. The EU saves Britain from the shortcomings of the FPTP system and the political pandering that comes with it. Every single leave argument boils down to emotion.
You might want to take them with a grain of salt as the initial claim of a European police force is demonstrably not true. The closest thing there is to that is Europol, which:
[...] has no executive powers, and its officials are not entitled to conduct investigations in the member states or to arrest suspects. Europol, in providing support through information exchange, intelligence analysis, expertise, and training, can contribute to the executive measures carried out by the relevant national authorities.
Convenience of argument. It's a lot easier to dismiss criticism if you assume the critic is flatly against the entire idea regardless of how well implemented it is.
China is putting a lot of effort into reducing its emissions. As is the EU. You seem woefully confused about this, to the point you are arguing against your own best interests. How terribly sad.
It has helped, actually. The EU has been trying to get mobile phone operators to treat their customers with some civility (abolishing EU roaming, lowering prices, data protection, etc.). It has been improving for years, and now without the EU there will be next to nothing to stop them getting worse and worse. British regulators will have enough on their hands as it is taking over their local duties from the EU to be capable enough to curtail this. It's not going to be pretty.
We are still dealing with ISIS, so it's too early to judge GWB's presidency, although it's already not exactly looked upon favorably, what with the wars which made no sense, the start of the regular drone attacks, artfully melding religion and presidency, and so on.
Iran hasn't crapped on any deal. Please keep up.
I like how you ignored the rest of the comment.
The org chart just shows you who reports to whom. It doesn't say anything about waste at all. To assume that more workers = waste can only come about from your personal opinion, so your argument kind of doesn't make any sense...
Your next president is famous for saying how he can grab women by the pussy and no-one can stop him. He denies science. He has secret, private dealings with foreign leaders who are at odds with the US's policies. See - it's not that you criticize, it's having a good enough reason to criticize.
I don't know why you mentioned monarchies - there are constitutional monarchies which seem to function better than the US does, at least politically.
You admitted above you don't know what the EPA does. Was your vote also to shake up government agencies you don't understand?
Seeing as you don't know the difference between sea and land ice, one is rather safe to ignore you. Is it too late to get a refund for your science education?