Hillary's inauguration would also be a cause for despair.
What on earth are you basing that on? I have seen a lot of innuendo on her, but never anything more substantial than possibly a poor choice of email server.
I took the TGV from Paris to Rennes. It is only "grand vitesses" for a few miles between the cities, most of the time it is plodding through cities & suburbs.
I've taken the same train, and what you say is simply not true. Yes, it takes about 20 minutes to get out of Paris, but that is a small fraction of the total travel time.
And what would that better solution be then? The side that so much wants to abolish ACA has never been able to come up with an alternative. Not even something laughably impractical, but nothing, zilch, zip, nada. Thinking doesn't seems to be the strong point of these people.
Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.
Complaining that people will use the data for crackpot theories that will take months to refute may not be scientific, but we scientists are only human, and we prefer to do useful things rather than argue with idiots. Especially if these idiots categorically and proudly refuse to understand scientific arguments. I'm working in a field that attracts few crackpots, but I don't envy the people that again, again, again, and again have to refute the nutty theories about climate change, thermodynamical laws, evolution, and other fields that attract the loons.
And of course it's not possible to suppress every bit, although the fact that the last 20 years there hasn't been any significant global warming isn't well known is proof of a good attempt at it.
The claim that there has been any significant global warning got plenty of press, but the claim has been convincingly refuted as cherry picking of the available data, so it is not surprising that the mainstream press does not make this claim. That's not suppression, that's journalistic integrity.
Again, if there was any scientific research that would solidly prove your `fact', it would be available online. As you say yourself, this supposed suppression of the facts can in practice not be perfect, so surely somebody would publish it?
You are really arguing that it is impossible to get funding from counter-AGW research? Even assuming that it is completely impossible to get money from mainstream research sources, surely not all those deniers are completely broke? Just crowd-fund it, you bunch of whiners. Start with Mr. Lamar Smith himself, he must have a few dimes to spare.
And do you really think that if some solid research would topple mainstream climate science, it would be possible to suppress is, even if people would try?
Try to come up with some decent counter-arguments, and not just this lame conspiracy theory again, ok?
What are you trying to say, that what was in the emails were lies? That the collusion between the DNC, MSM, and Clinton campaign were manufactured scandals that caused people to resign and lose their jobs?
Have you actually read those emails? Can you come up with some actual quotes from the emails that prove what you are claiming? What I am saying is that so far I have not seen any actual quotes that are in any way damning.
I am confused. So far the DNC and Clinton has acted like that what was in the emails were true. Is there any reason to believe that what is in the emails are manufactured?
Well, I have seen reports that according to the DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways, but they wisely decided that that would not convince anybody because that doesn't fit in a Twitter message.
Obama already gave them free reign to fuck around with Europe. Have you not been paying attention?
As a European I have been paying attention, and the above is utter nonsense. It may be that you don't notice any political manoeuvring more subtle than thermonuclear war, but that doesn't mean nothing has happened.
Raising a stink with nothing substantial to back it up is not exactly a new tactic. See for example the infinite number of hearings about Bengazi, and the climategate nonsense.
Just because somebody waves a few 'liberated' emails around and shouts SCANDAL!!! doesn't mean there really is a scandal.
Unfortunately manufactured scandals can still influence an election.
... Or the people of the US finally realise they should elect people that can actually govern properly. I'm an optimist, but let's at least keep mentioning this option.
A decent government tries to make their populace safe. Defining safety guidelines helps with this. Please try to appreciate the remnants of decent government that still have survived rather than score cheap talking points by playing the cynic. The flocks of horror clowns that, for example, the people in the US prefer to elect nowadays on all levels of their government will try to demolish these remnants soon enough.
My internet bill just went *down* 6 bucks a month thanks to a CRTC ruling. I understand calling regulatory bodies toothless makes you feel like a grizzled callitlikeitis realist, but it makes you look naive when it's demonstrably untrue.
It pains me to say this, but you are wrong (and naive) to think that on/. being wrong makes you look naive.
Why are the lefties always trying to guide other peoples children?
This leftie isn't, although it would be nice if said children would at least learn that some people have values such as equality and being good to other people. Some people even call these Christian values, but what do I know.
Similarly loaded question: why are righties always trying to guide other peoples' sex life?
Quote by Richard Muller, from the very article you linked to:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Note the word may. He thinks that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute. How am I misrepresenting what Mr. Muller is saying?
And if he already was convinced 'that human-created CO2 contributes to AGW', what was the point of doing his own independent research to verify the work those 97% of scientists? The whole point of doing his own research was that he was sceptical, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, government power is disturbing. Maybe there should be less government wielding less power?
I have a better idea: elect governments that wield power wisely.
Otherwise they wouldn't have whined at the military for 'chink in the armour'.
And of course, as is common with this kind of silly claim, this is without any reference or context.
Or throw the chess pieces out of his pram.
Hillary's inauguration would also be a cause for despair.
What on earth are you basing that on? I have seen a lot of innuendo on her, but never anything more substantial than possibly a poor choice of email server.
I took the TGV from Paris to Rennes. It is only "grand vitesses" for a few miles between the cities, most of the time it is plodding through cities & suburbs.
I've taken the same train, and what you say is simply not true. Yes, it takes about 20 minutes to get out of Paris, but that is a small fraction of the total travel time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And what would that better solution be then? The side that so much wants to abolish ACA has never been able to come up with an alternative. Not even something laughably impractical, but nothing, zilch, zip, nada. Thinking doesn't seems to be the strong point of these people.
Nah, we're compassionate, we just smile superiorly at such ignorance.
And do you know that asbestos causes cancer?
Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.
Complaining that people will use the data for crackpot theories that will take months to refute may not be scientific, but we scientists are only human, and we prefer to do useful things rather than argue with idiots. Especially if these idiots categorically and proudly refuse to understand scientific arguments. I'm working in a field that attracts few crackpots, but I don't envy the people that again, again, again, and again have to refute the nutty theories about climate change, thermodynamical laws, evolution, and other fields that attract the loons.
And of course it's not possible to suppress every bit, although the fact that the last 20 years there hasn't been any significant global warming isn't well known is proof of a good attempt at it.
The claim that there has been any significant global warning got plenty of press, but the claim has been convincingly refuted as cherry picking of the available data, so it is not surprising that the mainstream press does not make this claim. That's not suppression, that's journalistic integrity.
Again, if there was any scientific research that would solidly prove your `fact', it would be available online. As you say yourself, this supposed suppression of the facts can in practice not be perfect, so surely somebody would publish it?
The emails are the raw data now? WTF?
You are really arguing that it is impossible to get funding from counter-AGW research? Even assuming that it is completely impossible to get money from mainstream research sources, surely not all those deniers are completely broke? Just crowd-fund it, you bunch of whiners. Start with Mr. Lamar Smith himself, he must have a few dimes to spare.
And do you really think that if some solid research would topple mainstream climate science, it would be possible to suppress is, even if people would try?
Try to come up with some decent counter-arguments, and not just this lame conspiracy theory again, ok?
"the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"
And even this has not been substantiated to the public by the US intelligence agencies.
Totally agree, I haven't seen any evidence that the Russians found anything really embarrassing.
What are you trying to say, that what was in the emails were lies? That the collusion between the DNC, MSM, and Clinton campaign were manufactured scandals that caused people to resign and lose their jobs?
Have you actually read those emails? Can you come up with some actual quotes from the emails that prove what you are claiming? What I am saying is that so far I have not seen any actual quotes that are in any way damning.
I am confused. So far the DNC and Clinton has acted like that what was in the emails were true. Is there any reason to believe that what is in the emails are manufactured?
Well, I have seen reports that according to the DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways, but they wisely decided that that would not convince anybody because that doesn't fit in a Twitter message.
Obama already gave them free reign to fuck around with Europe. Have you not been paying attention?
As a European I have been paying attention, and the above is utter nonsense. It may be that you don't notice any political manoeuvring more subtle than thermonuclear war, but that doesn't mean nothing has happened.
No corporation has as much power as those running a socialist economy, not even the worst historic monopolies were even close.
Ever heard of Banana Republics? Colonization?
Raising a stink with nothing substantial to back it up is not exactly a new tactic. See for example the infinite number of hearings about Bengazi, and the climategate nonsense.
Just because somebody waves a few 'liberated' emails around and shouts SCANDAL!!! doesn't mean there really is a scandal.
Unfortunately manufactured scandals can still influence an election.
Yeah, this is one way to get the last word: produce a word salad with only vague insinuations. Are you drunk?
... Or the people of the US finally realise they should elect people that can actually govern properly. I'm an optimist, but let's at least keep mentioning this option.
A decent government tries to make their populace safe. Defining safety guidelines helps with this. Please try to appreciate the remnants of decent government that still have survived rather than score cheap talking points by playing the cynic. The flocks of horror clowns that, for example, the people in the US prefer to elect nowadays on all levels of their government will try to demolish these remnants soon enough.
My internet bill just went *down* 6 bucks a month thanks to a CRTC ruling. I understand calling regulatory bodies toothless makes you feel like a grizzled callitlikeitis realist, but it makes you look naive when it's demonstrably untrue.
It pains me to say this, but you are wrong (and naive) to think that on /. being wrong makes you look naive.
Why are the lefties always trying to guide other peoples children?
This leftie isn't, although it would be nice if said children would at least learn that some people have values such as equality and being good to other people. Some people even call these Christian values, but what do I know.
Similarly loaded question: why are righties always trying to guide other peoples' sex life?
Without further context these sentences look contradictory to me. Can you please provide a reference to the article where he wrote this?
I repeat from your own post:
Quote by Richard Muller, from the very article you linked to:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Note the word may. He thinks that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute. How am I misrepresenting what Mr. Muller is saying?
And if he already was convinced 'that human-created CO2 contributes to AGW', what was the point of doing his own independent research to verify the work those 97% of scientists? The whole point of doing his own research was that he was sceptical, no?