What a joke. Your first link is fear mongering, the second link says if we adjust for the incorrectness of previous models we can find the correctness of the present. It fails to mention that the rate of temp rise within the last 15 or more years is within the bound of statistical error anyways. Your last two links add nothing of value and your entire premise that I interpreted the evidence is BS in the first place.
But hey, how else are you going to say something without saying anything at all.
Who's not presenting a real alternative to the other side? Let it happen and deal with it when it happens which will be over a span of several hundred years is a real alternative. It will be the 1%ers who primarily lose out.
Of course I have always been under the impression that if global warming really and truly was a dire needs problem that instead of devising ways to tax the populace and make crap so expensive they cannot afford it, instead of creating hardships in order to exert control over the populaces, they would get teams of scientists from all over the world together working on capture systems, ways to make fossil fuels cleaner, alternative energy ideas and solutions, and more efficient uses of energy as we use it now. Then as solutions become viable, realistic, and useable, we release the information and at certain mile stones, mandate acceptance of higher standard when they become economically acceptable.
Instead, it seems like taxing energy, causing production to move offshore, and expressing control over the masses- making them get by with less, in the hopes that someone will some day invest the money to achieve that.
they may have some obligation to the university but the University is bared from certain actions because it takes public money. This makes them an extension of government.
For instance, the DMV in most states is sub-licensed (franchised) to someone else who operates them per county or even city wide. They cannot make you agree to not calling black people racial slurs in order to get your registration renewed. They cannot deny your license renewal because you did so at some other site or because you have a pro life bumper sticker. And if they made you sign a contract as a condition of such, they cannot legally enforce it.
There are a few court cases that say as much but I'm not where I can look them up at the moment. Someone else has posted them already if you look through the comments a bit.
You are correct. It's just that privileges and rights they had on a government sponsored campus has been removed and/restricted for that speech.
And we all know denying people government services or treating them differently under the law, or even in government sponsored universities because of their speech is perfectly fine because "No warrants have been issued, no one has been arrested, and no one is in jail".
You can express fire in a theater. There are limits to it though.
The concept of yelling fire in a crowded theater comes from the longstanding problems with lack of exits and plenty of consumables for a fire. At a time before we had fire codes and emergency exits, sprinklers, and all, if a fire broke out in a theater, there was a good chance of dieing by either the fire, smoke, or getting trampled on by others trying to escape. You can search google for it, but there are numerous theater fires in history where dozens and even hundreds of people died due to one of those. It's a bit dated but the immediate danger associated with shouting fire and not having the context of why could result in imminent harm to others from their panicking. Not saying I agree, but I understand the concept.
Yes, because the concept of being free to say whatever you feel like saying, expressing your opinion, even if it is against popular opinion is something that only the educated smart people in your circle can understand right? And god forbid anyone forms an opinion from something someone else says, that just screws the concept all up right?
People who "derp" about people who derp likely fall into the same class as they describe.
There is never a lack of recourse in courts if recourse is indeed warranted. The local courts may be corrupt, but you also have state and federal courts and by saying arrested- you are signifying that it is a government entity which gives you standing in federal court. Now you do need to jump the hurdle of cops lying but if as you say is true, there will be quite a few people claiming the cops always lie in concerns with that.
Now if you mean mobs, you still have some recourse even if the local courts will discriminate.
Because you idiot, everyone knows that this kind of speech needs to happen in secret so as they do not identify you or anyone else when you are in positions of power and actually holding the brothers down.
Oh wait.. Actually, that is not some organized ideology but that is all that will happen. People who are racist or whatever will just keep their mouths shut, associate with others they know in well determined privacy and you will have that much of a harder time determining if their actions in business or whatever is due to it or not. At least someone who is a known racists will know they have to hire minorities and treat them respectfully else face lawsuits.
I'd much rather know and understand who the idiots are then have them casually working behind the scenes.
Probably but i usually keep the guns loaded with either #000 or #0000 buck for other uses. There wouln't be too much to worry about downrange at my place but i understand the concern.
We are not to the point i need to keep a drone gun handy yet. Cyotes and adicts trying to steal my nitrogen and anything else not nailed down are my main concerns.
I'm not making any assumption not made by the study. You can google for it. Or i can later when not pisting from my phone and post a link. Hell, slashdot even ran a story on it so you can just search slashdot.
Btw, i think it linked volcanic activity and natural current fluctuation but its been so long since i readabout it i could be wrong.
Wow, a dumbass that figured how to register with slashdot compare to what are you who cannot figure out how to log in.. interesting.
I do believe i prefaced my comments had you bothered reading them or hold the comprehension abilities to understand them with " in my area" which makes anyone not in.my area meamingless to my comment. I guess in a way you are correct, i ignored everyone ese on earth with my comment, but that is also why i limited it to my area.
So tell me, are you upset that if you fly your drone over my property it will be shot at? If so, you really are the one in control of that.
And i wonder if it is not a completely incorect assumption. Wasn't there a study last summer stating the heat in the north west was because of changes in ocean currents and not global warming. I have a hard time thinking the drought in california is not unrelated. The weather there as well as for most of the US west is largely dependant on the pacific ocean.
Not too much of a worry. In most locations its tresspassing just to enter anothers property without permission. In most casez, you lose the ability to seek redress for harm thst came to you during the violation of a crime (thanks to rediculous lawsuits in the past).
It will depend on where you are but it does not worry me where i am at.
If helped shape means employed political theatrics, exageration, violstion of lsws, then yes i would say political activism. Are you honestly trying to ignore the crap hansen participated in the demote jis acts to "concern"?
Yes because history had proven that there was never any blowback from saying women should have the right to vote or that blacks and other minorities deserve the same rights and abilities in society that whites and everyone else enjoys.
Yep, you should think twice before publically participating in political speech else that donation to the group wanting to define marriage between a man and a woman will stop you from having a job at some places.
If all that was stated was verifyable facts, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. They are stating solutions that are not verifyable but require specific political action which moves it into politics.
What would make you think that? If anything from what i can gather from quickly looking at the wkipedia entry is that she could have been a political pawn but that doesn't seem to be the case..
Are you suggesting that she used theatrics and went to congress to push a specific agenda or that she not only helped organize but participated in political protests and even got arrested for violating laws in the process? Are you suggesting that portions of the science she presented were shown to be incorectly exagerating the claims? Just what are you suggesting?
Politics is seldom about right and wrong or correct and incorect. Of course people think that it is but its just an opinion from their perspective. Of course the science or scientist of global warming are pushing the political solutions of using less and raising taxes to accomplish that knowing that alternatives just are not there with the idea that they get more money in the end. Of course that is political just as threatening to yank professionall credentials if a weather reporter says some storm is not caused by global warming is political.
You may not like it but the so called science of global warming is political on many levels.
When scientist doing the science participate in political activism to promote the science and many of the claimed results failed to manifest, you do not know that. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.
Lol. You sure did find a way to hit all your talking points without it becoming too incoherent. However, i think you are missing the fact that this is a government action directed to employees of that government so it is by default political. Science or scientists pushing political goals is still politics.
Wow.. your brain simply does not work like it should does it?
Yes, when people make political issues of science issues, that science often becomes political. I know- shocking isn't it. But it is no different than anything else that people make political issues.
Its not odd at all considering scientists participate in political activism (james hansen) and politicians push the science in question to further their own goals (al gore among others).
In fact, in 1988 i think it was, political operatives scheduled the introduction of global to the US congress on the historically hottest day of the year then cut the AC for congress in a poitical move of theatrics when scientist started alarming lawmakers of the impending doom that is the warming of the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
What a joke. Your first link is fear mongering, the second link says if we adjust for the incorrectness of previous models we can find the correctness of the present. It fails to mention that the rate of temp rise within the last 15 or more years is within the bound of statistical error anyways. Your last two links add nothing of value and your entire premise that I interpreted the evidence is BS in the first place.
But hey, how else are you going to say something without saying anything at all.
Who's not presenting a real alternative to the other side? Let it happen and deal with it when it happens which will be over a span of several hundred years is a real alternative. It will be the 1%ers who primarily lose out.
Of course I have always been under the impression that if global warming really and truly was a dire needs problem that instead of devising ways to tax the populace and make crap so expensive they cannot afford it, instead of creating hardships in order to exert control over the populaces, they would get teams of scientists from all over the world together working on capture systems, ways to make fossil fuels cleaner, alternative energy ideas and solutions, and more efficient uses of energy as we use it now. Then as solutions become viable, realistic, and useable, we release the information and at certain mile stones, mandate acceptance of higher standard when they become economically acceptable.
Instead, it seems like taxing energy, causing production to move offshore, and expressing control over the masses- making them get by with less, in the hopes that someone will some day invest the money to achieve that.
But this has little to do with
they may have some obligation to the university but the University is bared from certain actions because it takes public money. This makes them an extension of government.
For instance, the DMV in most states is sub-licensed (franchised) to someone else who operates them per county or even city wide. They cannot make you agree to not calling black people racial slurs in order to get your registration renewed. They cannot deny your license renewal because you did so at some other site or because you have a pro life bumper sticker. And if they made you sign a contract as a condition of such, they cannot legally enforce it.
There are a few court cases that say as much but I'm not where I can look them up at the moment. Someone else has posted them already if you look through the comments a bit.
I hear that quite a lot. But no one can name any prominent ones to do so. I do know Senator Byrd never thought of becoming a republican.
Can you list some of these democrats in the south fighting all this equality and desegregation stuff who switched to the republicans?
You are correct. It's just that privileges and rights they had on a government sponsored campus has been removed and/restricted for that speech.
And we all know denying people government services or treating them differently under the law, or even in government sponsored universities because of their speech is perfectly fine because "No warrants have been issued, no one has been arrested, and no one is in jail".
You can express fire in a theater. There are limits to it though.
The concept of yelling fire in a crowded theater comes from the longstanding problems with lack of exits and plenty of consumables for a fire. At a time before we had fire codes and emergency exits, sprinklers, and all, if a fire broke out in a theater, there was a good chance of dieing by either the fire, smoke, or getting trampled on by others trying to escape. You can search google for it, but there are numerous theater fires in history where dozens and even hundreds of people died due to one of those. It's a bit dated but the immediate danger associated with shouting fire and not having the context of why could result in imminent harm to others from their panicking. Not saying I agree, but I understand the concept.
Yes, because the concept of being free to say whatever you feel like saying, expressing your opinion, even if it is against popular opinion is something that only the educated smart people in your circle can understand right? And god forbid anyone forms an opinion from something someone else says, that just screws the concept all up right?
People who "derp" about people who derp likely fall into the same class as they describe.
There is never a lack of recourse in courts if recourse is indeed warranted. The local courts may be corrupt, but you also have state and federal courts and by saying arrested- you are signifying that it is a government entity which gives you standing in federal court. Now you do need to jump the hurdle of cops lying but if as you say is true, there will be quite a few people claiming the cops always lie in concerns with that.
Now if you mean mobs, you still have some recourse even if the local courts will discriminate.
Because you idiot, everyone knows that this kind of speech needs to happen in secret so as they do not identify you or anyone else when you are in positions of power and actually holding the brothers down.
Oh wait.. Actually, that is not some organized ideology but that is all that will happen. People who are racist or whatever will just keep their mouths shut, associate with others they know in well determined privacy and you will have that much of a harder time determining if their actions in business or whatever is due to it or not. At least someone who is a known racists will know they have to hire minorities and treat them respectfully else face lawsuits.
I'd much rather know and understand who the idiots are then have them casually working behind the scenes.
Probably but i usually keep the guns loaded with either #000 or #0000 buck for other uses. There wouln't be too much to worry about downrange at my place but i understand the concern.
We are not to the point i need to keep a drone gun handy yet. Cyotes and adicts trying to steal my nitrogen and anything else not nailed down are my main concerns.
I'm not making any assumption not made by the study. You can google for it. Or i can later when not pisting from my phone and post a link. Hell, slashdot even ran a story on it so you can just search slashdot.
Btw, i think it linked volcanic activity and natural current fluctuation but its been so long since i readabout it i could be wrong.
Wow, a dumbass that figured how to register with slashdot compare to what are you who cannot figure out how to log in.. interesting.
I do believe i prefaced my comments had you bothered reading them or hold the comprehension abilities to understand them with " in my area" which makes anyone not in.my area meamingless to my comment. I guess in a way you are correct, i ignored everyone ese on earth with my comment, but that is also why i limited it to my area.
So tell me, are you upset that if you fly your drone over my property it will be shot at? If so, you really are the one in control of that.
And i wonder if it is not a completely incorect assumption. Wasn't there a study last summer stating the heat in the north west was because of changes in ocean currents and not global warming. I have a hard time thinking the drought in california is not unrelated. The weather there as well as for most of the US west is largely dependant on the pacific ocean.
They should not have flown their drone into my buckshot that definately have a right to have in the airspace ovee my property.
And yes, im my area, you do kose your ability for redress when commiting a crime.
And if ir is shot down on my property or ends up on it any other way, its mine just like the golf balls, frizbees, baseballs and anything else.
Not too much of a worry. In most locations its tresspassing just to enter anothers property without permission. In most casez, you lose the ability to seek redress for harm thst came to you during the violation of a crime (thanks to rediculous lawsuits in the past).
It will depend on where you are but it does not worry me where i am at.
If helped shape means employed political theatrics, exageration, violstion of lsws, then yes i would say political activism. Are you honestly trying to ignore the crap hansen participated in the demote jis acts to "concern"?
Yes because history had proven that there was never any blowback from saying women should have the right to vote or that blacks and other minorities deserve the same rights and abilities in society that whites and everyone else enjoys.
Yep, you should think twice before publically participating in political speech else that donation to the group wanting to define marriage between a man and a woman will stop you from having a job at some places.
You are 100% corect think hard before you speak.
If all that was stated was verifyable facts, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. They are stating solutions that are not verifyable but require specific political action which moves it into politics.
What would make you think that? If anything from what i can gather from quickly looking at the wkipedia entry is that she could have been a political pawn but that doesn't seem to be the case..
Are you suggesting that she used theatrics and went to congress to push a specific agenda or that she not only helped organize but participated in political protests and even got arrested for violating laws in the process? Are you suggesting that portions of the science she presented were shown to be incorectly exagerating the claims? Just what are you suggesting?
Politics is seldom about right and wrong or correct and incorect. Of course people think that it is but its just an opinion from their perspective. Of course the science or scientist of global warming are pushing the political solutions of using less and raising taxes to accomplish that knowing that alternatives just are not there with the idea that they get more money in the end. Of course that is political just as threatening to yank professionall credentials if a weather reporter says some storm is not caused by global warming is political.
You may not like it but the so called science of global warming is political on many levels.
When scientist doing the science participate in political activism to promote the science and many of the claimed results failed to manifest, you do not know that. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.
If you really think science has nothing to do with politics then quit injecting it into politics.
Lol. You sure did find a way to hit all your talking points without it becoming too incoherent. However, i think you are missing the fact that this is a government action directed to employees of that government so it is by default political. Science or scientists pushing political goals is still politics.
Wow.. your brain simply does not work like it should does it?
Yes, when people make political issues of science issues, that science often becomes political. I know- shocking isn't it. But it is no different than anything else that people make political issues.
Its not odd at all considering scientists participate in political activism (james hansen) and politicians push the science in question to further their own goals (al gore among others).
In fact, in 1988 i think it was, political operatives scheduled the introduction of global to the US congress on the historically hottest day of the year then cut the AC for congress in a poitical move of theatrics when scientist started alarming lawmakers of the impending doom that is the warming of the earth.
No, not odd at all considering.