Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
Are you restricting this to race? Or I am not allowed to state that Linus Torvalds is a more valuable human being than Sarah Palin? And how do you police what people think?
The largest problem with global warming is not a dispute about the course of warming, but the arrogance that human beings are not only responsible for the warming but should be in control of the warming. The arrogance that because we might be contributing to a climate change, we are responsible to control that change. AGW supporters contend that we are responsible, and therefore we should control the climate. In particular, they want us to do what ever it takes to reverse the trend and to prevent the climate from changing.
But even if humanity isn't responsible, we're the ones who will suffer the consequences.
You can replace Scientologists with homeopaths, chiropractors, Christian Scientists, anti-vaccination advocates, etc. That's why we have science. Indeed, I would trust double-blind studies over their beliefs.
I have no financial stake in the AGW debate, but I worry about people who place economics over climate.
So your answer is to go "The sky is falling!" and then stand there?
No. Those who claim that AGW occurs are not the ones just standing there. In the US at least, they leave doing nothing to the Party of No, the Republicans.
ANY plan that is based on "Fuck the west" is doomed to failure, because the west is ALREADY in decline.
And what about a non-plan that fucks the entire planet? The West isn't going to be helped by having oceans rise 100 feet, either.
It is because, thanks in part to SCOTUS saying "corps=people" and "money=speech"
Oh yeah, the climatologists were celebrating Citizens United v. FEC, and no corporation ever funded speech that said that AGW wasn't occurring.
Cap-and-trade may be bad policy, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
I don't know about Waxman's district, but his cosponsor's (Markey (MA)) district has some very low-lying land (sea-level).
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that the AGWers are correct. What do you expect us to do?
The very raising of the problem may well encourage people to solve it.
The simple fact is after years of searching we simply haven't found anything with the energy density of oil, and short of wiping out a good 60% of the world's population and going back to a pre-industrial society I don't see anything on the board that will cause any real change.
And if we do nothing we may suffer that population loss anyway.
In other words, the news should get cheaper as it costs less to obtain it.
It may cost you less to read it, but did it cost the newspaper less to obtain. Does the internet make investigative journalism cheaper, or does it merely allow the results to be disseminated more cheaply?
I took it to mean pulling on the strap and releasing it, thus having the strap smack into the wearer's back. You're pulling on the back side of the bra.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, that needs time and some skills to set up,
How hard is it to run an ftp server on one box and a client on the other?
How about this:
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/
Mark Sanford resigned.
As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, not as Governor of South Carolina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford
And how much does a 24-gig (or larger) USB stick compare in price to a Blu-Ray disk? A DVD-RW is cheaper than a 4-gig USB drive.
But what if you want to give a 24-gigabyte file to someone?
But 24 is a high-quality movie title (yes, it's a TV show); it's just a lousy show.
Hey, you could easily fit 50 high-quality movie titles on a 1.44 MB floppy disk.
That's what happens when you put Clemson grads in the Senate. :-)
No, you're assuming that your readers are telepathic.
If it's not that hard, then why didn't you do so in your original post?
The US Constitution treats treaties (along with the Constitution and Federal law) as the supreme Law of the Land (Article VI, paragraph 2).
At least they're not being sued in the UK, which makes it easier for a plaintiff to win a libel suit.
Yeah, next you'll tell me that the British Chiropractic Association can pursue a frivolous libel suit against Simon Singh.
Oops, bad example.
Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
Are you restricting this to race? Or I am not allowed to state that Linus Torvalds is a more valuable human being than Sarah Palin? And how do you police what people think?
And if the planet as a whole is getting warmer?
The largest problem with global warming is not a dispute about the course of warming, but the arrogance that human beings are not only responsible for the warming but should be in control of the warming. The arrogance that because we might be contributing to a climate change, we are responsible to control that change. AGW supporters contend that we are responsible, and therefore we should control the climate. In particular, they want us to do what ever it takes to reverse the trend and to prevent the climate from changing.
But even if humanity isn't responsible, we're the ones who will suffer the consequences.
You can replace Scientologists with homeopaths, chiropractors, Christian Scientists, anti-vaccination advocates, etc. That's why we have science. Indeed, I would trust double-blind studies over their beliefs.
I have no financial stake in the AGW debate, but I worry about people who place economics over climate.
So your answer is to go "The sky is falling!" and then stand there?
No. Those who claim that AGW occurs are not the ones just standing there. In the US at least, they leave doing nothing to the Party of No, the Republicans.
ANY plan that is based on "Fuck the west" is doomed to failure, because the west is ALREADY in decline.
And what about a non-plan that fucks the entire planet? The West isn't going to be helped by having oceans rise 100 feet, either.
It is because, thanks in part to SCOTUS saying "corps=people" and "money=speech"
Oh yeah, the climatologists were celebrating Citizens United v. FEC, and no corporation ever funded speech that said that AGW wasn't occurring.
Cap-and-trade may be bad policy, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
I don't know about Waxman's district, but his cosponsor's (Markey (MA)) district has some very low-lying land (sea-level).
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that the AGWers are correct. What do you expect us to do?
The very raising of the problem may well encourage people to solve it.
The simple fact is after years of searching we simply haven't found anything with the energy density of oil, and short of wiping out a good 60% of the world's population and going back to a pre-industrial society I don't see anything on the board that will cause any real change.
And if we do nothing we may suffer that population loss anyway.
How about this
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
I wasn't trolling; I was saying that here is more evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists to evade.
Anthropogenic Global Warming.
But won't this make it easier for AGW denialists to climb Everest?
In other words, the news should get cheaper as it costs less to obtain it.
It may cost you less to read it, but did it cost the newspaper less to obtain. Does the internet make investigative journalism cheaper, or does it merely allow the results to be disseminated more cheaply?
I took it to mean pulling on the strap and releasing it, thus having the strap smack into the wearer's back. You're pulling on the back side of the bra.