Tell you what, when they arrest the Attorney General, Vice President and President and charge them with the long list of crimes they have committed against the US people, against the US constitution and against humanity, then lets talk about this stuff eh?
They have by any objective standards ordered torture and committed other war crimes.
I know! Even though the Prez didn't order it, that panties on the head thing was terrible. John McCain said, "Thank GOD the Viet Cong did not wear panties. Had they placed those on my head instead of the bamboo under the fingernails thing mixed with beating me with a lead pipe... well, let's just say the panties would have made me crack!"
Of course, that pantie torture is NOTHING compared to the three square meals, prayer time and air conditioning (that part the Prez DID order, that fucker!). I mean, all these guys were doing was planning to blow up a grade school in their home country and then ambushing the American invaders when they showed up to help save the Muslim children. How dare we treat them so rough!
Ready? Ok. The parent effectively said that "some xenophobes would rather burn their money on robots" than hire "'dirty mexicans'"*. This is likely a true statement. Notice that he did not say that everyone who hires immigrants or illegals would rather spend their money on robots to do the same job. Far from it. He said "SOME XENOPHOBES" would rather spend money on machines than hire illegals.
I'm afraid you missed it. You are correct that he said SOME xenophobes would rather burn their money or robots than hire dirty Mexicans. However, you missed the understood portion that says, "the rest are too cheap to let their xenophobia overrule their wallets so they go ahead hire the "dirty Mexicans" anyway."
Besides, xenophobia is a bad term to use anyway. Intolerance of the unfamiliar is not an accurate description of farmers who hire migrant workers to pick fruit. These people speak Spanish and know how to get along with their workers. You don't get far in that business without a broad understanding and respect for the people you are hiring.
This one is worth a few "Funny" points, if not something else for the thought behind the sarcasm.
I doubt it. I read it as a stereotype parody of anyone who is against illegal immigration. See, if you are not for completely open borders, you are automatically a racist, xenophobe, bigot, red-neck...whatever. He refuses to consider that maybe illegals have no rights, no protection under the law (as far as they know), and they are taken advantage of and abused on a regular basis because they are illegal and are afraid to seek their rights. It makes his side a clear winner when he doesn't mention that people who want a secure border aren't against immigration. We just want a name and simple background check. We are not bigots. Hell, for that matter, I feel the immigration quota should be raised to the number of estimated illegals in the country. What is it, 12,000,000. The number of legal immigrants is capped at 250,000. That's a joke! NO wonder there are so many illegals!
Anyway, this machinery is the modern day equivalent of the cotton gin. Only, instead of helping to end the oppression of blacks, it will end the oppression of Hispanics.
Face it, some xenophobes would rather burn their money on robot's that comes with an English manual than a spanish speaking migrant.
Funny. The people I know that hire "dirty Mexicans" usually end up hiring them for life. They treat their employees as family and their kids as their own. For that matter, I haven't seen a farmer or rancher yet that didn't put his "hired hand's" kids through college. Granted, these weren't migrant workers, but illegals with "anchor babies", but dirty Mexicans (your words, not mine) nonetheless.
I'm afraid you have no idea as to what you are talking about. Spouting negative stereotypes won't make you look any smarter.
Have you done any research on these programs at all? I'm guessing not. Not really. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure these are worthy causes, but not causes that MY tax dollars should be paying for. Let's look at your examples:
Your second example is the soybean tech research. Did you know that soybean is one of the three main agricultural exports of the U.S.? Then let those who eat soybeans pay for it. Cut the federal funding, farmers and "the soybean industry picks up the slack, soybean prices go up to cover the federal dollars lost, those who eat soybeans pay the higher price, and everyone's tax dollars are saved. Or, let the soybean farming community pay for it.
How about the conservation of the Great Lakes, which supports a $4 billion dollar fishing industry (to say nothing of the massive amounts of cargo floated through)? Why is this a waste of money? I never said it was wasted money. I just shouldn't be the one paying for it. If it's a $4 billion dollar fishing industry, then that industry can afford to pay for it themselves. That is less that.0625%. I think they can afford it. If they can't, let the state governments of WI, MI, IN, IL, NY and OH pay for it. I eat fish farmed or caught locally in Texas. Why am I paying for fisheries in Wisconsin?
My point is that nearly all of these programs should be paid for by the industries or state they help. There were 10,000 products listed on that page from 2006 alone. That federal money could be better spent on programs that everyone benefits from, especially since everyone is paying for it. Better yet, cut my taxes!
That's all a pittiance in price compared to a Mars program
True, what I listed is a very small percentage of what the Mars program will cost. However, I only listed a few out of the nearly 10,000 programs that are ID'd as pork. Now I'm not judging these programs. I'm sure some of them are very worthy causes. However, many of these programs are redundant and nearly all of them should be paid for by either local governments or private interests. You;ll notice on my list that $3,625,000 went to CA to study "Grape Genomics Research Center" and $3,625,000 went to NY for "Center for Grape Genetics". How about we let the wineries or CA and NY study grapes on their own or at least merge these programs since they are studying the same damn thing! Why are 7.3 million dollars of my tax dollars used to study grape genetics every single year? I'd much rather NASA or some other national program that everyone benefits from get the money. Better yet, give it back!
MO $987,000National Center for Soybean Technology (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
VT $750,000Environmentally safe products (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
CA $1,929,000Exotic pest diseases (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
I $2,500,000For the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Control (Conservation Programs)
IA $1,775,000Iowa Biotechnology Consortium (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
MD $3,625,000Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
NY $3,625,000Center for Grape Genetics (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
TX $546,000Hispanic Leadership in Agriculture (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
MS $1,433,000Mississippi Valley State University, Curriculum Development (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
MI $1,350,000Pasteurization of shell eggs (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
CA $3,625,000Grape Genomics Research Center (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
WI $8,000,000Nutrient Management Laboratory (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
$18,000,000Facilities in rural communities with extreme unemployment (Rural Community Advancement Program)
$18,250,000Technical assistance grants for rural water and waste systems (Rural Community Advancement Program)
AK $25,000,000Rural and native villages in Alaska (Rural Community Advancement Program)
MD $6,000,000Chesapeake Bay activities (Conservation Programs)
OH $1,145,000Center for Innovative Food Technology (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
Payments were deferred until then because 2008 was the year the district was scheduled to finish making state loan repayments under its previous loan plan, according to the Contra Costa story.
Also, I noticed the state got their money before asking IBM to forgive its debts. Why doesn't IBM ask the state to give their money back as well?
Hmm. A method that yields completely different numbers than other methods. There is a word for that. It's called inorrect.
Really? How do you know? Maybe we should bring in some other sources. Here is a few: Here's one from NASA, that goes back 800,000 years and shows that we are in a "Little Ice Age" Here's one from SEED that goes back 140 years and shows that we are 0.4 degrees C above where we were in 1860 AD. SEED, btw, seems to be a biased source. Anyplace that is hawking a solar powered backback has something to gain from GW.
Here is something from the guys that did the first site I mentioned:
An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title "Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years." Wow, that's a mouthful! Imagine publishing a paper in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal in which you predict global cooling over the next few decades? Apparently, the authors were not moved by the 46.6 million websites found when doing a quick search of the internet for "global warming."
The article was produced by Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China (obviously, English is not their first language, if you couldn't tell from the title, and some of the following quotes from their article are a bit awkward). The work was funded by the Chinese National Science Foundation, and not by coal interests in China. We have no reason to suspect that Zhen-Shan and Xian are puppets of any group with any interest in denying global warming in the coming decades.
So who do you believe? I've shown three different sources with three different models. Which one do you go by? Who says your models are better? Scientists? Scientists made all three models. What makes one any better than the others?
Actually, a quick look at scotese.com will show that someone who fails to site any source for his data made a website that shows that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with. I could go and make a website with lots of fancy graphs and graphics too... but if I don't cite sources for the data, then it doesn't mean a damn thing.
Well, if you can't defeat the argument, attack the source. There methods are explained in plain English HERE if you care to take the time to read them. It appears that neither one of us knows what you are talking about.
On one hand, you have scientists paid to do research by the government and other public organizations, with no instructions on what they can and cannot publish. These scientists are not paid more if they find that global warming is anthropogenic than if they find that it's not. If you think otherwise, you're drinking the Crichton kool-aid, and are subscribing to the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.
I very respectfully disagree. It seems to me that scientists who question global warming tend to lose their jobs. Here is one example from the Wiki page on Richard Lindzen (emphasis mine):
Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.
He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."
Another quote from Lindzen:
Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.
Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology, had his educational credentials challenged for question GW.
Dr. Griffin, a NASA chief almost lost his job recently for questioning GW. Here's an example of the ridicule scientists face just for questioning GW:
The chorus of outrage over the NASA chief's global warming comments were led by a well-known climate scientist within NASA. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "I almost fell off my chair," he told NPR's Morning Edition.
The statement "indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change," he added to ABC News. There's more, but it's late and this is a dead thread anyway.
Where do we "need" to be, and for what reason? I've never heard this anti-environmental remark before, I'm burning with curiosity to find out what this "need" is.
Exactly! Do you know where we "need" to be? I don't. According to Richard S. Lindzen in Newsweek, A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Is he right? I don't know.
Who is Richard S. LIindzen? According the MIT page:
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.
He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."
So I'm not going to debate weather (pun?) or not the earth is getting warmer, although, there are a few sites who point out that some of the locations of the temperature monitoring stations are poor. I will however question the doomsday scenarios that have been projected as the result of temperatures rising 0.2 degrees C.
Very true. A quick look at climate history will show that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with, well before the SUV was invented and Bush was elected. It will also show that we are actually in a cool period and global warming will get us back to where we need to be!
Only in countries where there is a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo has the issue been politicized.
Right, and the countries that are interested in changing the status quo are NOT politicizing the issue? I get it, since they are on YOUR side, it's not political, but those with different views are politicizing the issue.
You voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?
I believe that question has already been asked during the CNN sponsored debates.
Why is it wrong to kill a whale and not a cow or pig or chicken?
I eat all three, so why should I care for Willy the Whale?
Because the cow, pig and chicken you ate was born and raised with the sole purpose of becoming your meal. When these Eskimos start "ranching" whales, they can eat them.
Does that much crude go into plastics? I figured that the majority of oil was going to fuels. Would it be better for these guys to work with the current projects that are turning sugars into fuel rather than plastics?
I agree with the assumption that the new solar panels could be corrupting the systems. With the new solar panels, the systems are given more power. And as we all know...
Maybe they can't recognize siblings at all. Maybe the genetics are close enough so that the plant can not distinguish its own root from that of its siblings.
It completely sucked. It left you with thinking "he either got shot.. or didn't get shot."
I guess their main objective was to leave question, but leave everyone realizing that he's got to spend the rest of his life in anxiety, wondering if he's going to get shot at any time.
Their main objective was to have everyone talking about it, weighing in with their own theories as to what happened as the screen went black. I think it worked flawlessly.
You may not like it, but you are still talking about it. Isn't that the goal of art? Not to produce something that everyone likes, but to produce something that has people thinking and talking about long after it's gone. You have to admit, it is brilliant!
Yes, if I am shopping for insurance that will give me a huge discount for having perfect eyes. The insurance would be to protect me if something really out of the blue happens or I suffer from a currently undiagnosed illness.
And the bolded part is the key. Just because you are genetically inclined to have a disease, you may never get it or it may be 100% treatable. For example, genetically, I'm too blind to drive. I wore glasses for years and had the eye surgery about a year and a half ago. My vision is now better than 20/20, uncorrected. However, a genetic scan will still show that I'm blind as a bat. Just as someone with the gene for diabetes may never show any symptoms because the eat an Atkins diet and exercise regularly. It would be discrimination to charge that person higher rates. Another example would be that black people are more likely to suffer from cycle cell anemia. Statistics also show that black people are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods than say Asians. In poor neighborhoods, statistics show that you are more likely to "get a cap in your ass". Should black people pay higher rates? Good luck getting that past the ensuing lawsuits.
If I have speeding tickets, and my auto insurance carrier finds out about it, is that discrimination?
No, speeding is something you can control. However, would it be fair for your insurance company to raise your rates because you have bad vision? Granted, you can treat your condition through prescription eye-wear, contact lenses or surgery, just like you can treat diabetes through diet, exercise and/or insulin.
Can we expect (hope for) laws preventing this information being retrieved or considered when calculating insurance premiums or other times when this may lead to discrimination?
Slashdot Mirror
Tell you what, when they arrest the Attorney General, Vice President and President and charge them with the long list of crimes they have committed against the US people, against the US constitution and against humanity, then lets talk about this stuff eh?
They have by any objective standards ordered torture and committed other war crimes.
I know! Even though the Prez didn't order it, that panties on the head thing was terrible. John McCain said, "Thank GOD the Viet Cong did not wear panties. Had they placed those on my head instead of the bamboo under the fingernails thing mixed with beating me with a lead pipe... well, let's just say the panties would have made me crack!"
Of course, that pantie torture is NOTHING compared to the three square meals, prayer time and air conditioning (that part the Prez DID order, that fucker!). I mean, all these guys were doing was planning to blow up a grade school in their home country and then ambushing the American invaders when they showed up to help save the Muslim children. How dare we treat them so rough!
Ready? Ok. The parent effectively said that "some xenophobes would rather burn their money on robots" than hire "'dirty mexicans'"*. This is likely a true statement. Notice that he did not say that everyone who hires immigrants or illegals would rather spend their money on robots to do the same job. Far from it. He said "SOME XENOPHOBES" would rather spend money on machines than hire illegals.
I'm afraid you missed it. You are correct that he said SOME xenophobes would rather burn their money or robots than hire dirty Mexicans. However, you missed the understood portion that says, "the rest are too cheap to let their xenophobia overrule their wallets so they go ahead hire the "dirty Mexicans" anyway."
Besides, xenophobia is a bad term to use anyway. Intolerance of the unfamiliar is not an accurate description of farmers who hire migrant workers to pick fruit. These people speak Spanish and know how to get along with their workers. You don't get far in that business without a broad understanding and respect for the people you are hiring.
Mr, E-Poet:
Sorry, I thought you were responding to different post. Should have clicked the "parent" link to make sure.
You were right, that was kinda funny!
This one is worth a few "Funny" points, if not something else for the thought behind the sarcasm.
I doubt it. I read it as a stereotype parody of anyone who is against illegal immigration. See, if you are not for completely open borders, you are automatically a racist, xenophobe, bigot, red-neck...whatever. He refuses to consider that maybe illegals have no rights, no protection under the law (as far as they know), and they are taken advantage of and abused on a regular basis because they are illegal and are afraid to seek their rights. It makes his side a clear winner when he doesn't mention that people who want a secure border aren't against immigration. We just want a name and simple background check. We are not bigots. Hell, for that matter, I feel the immigration quota should be raised to the number of estimated illegals in the country. What is it, 12,000,000. The number of legal immigrants is capped at 250,000. That's a joke! NO wonder there are so many illegals!
Anyway, this machinery is the modern day equivalent of the cotton gin. Only, instead of helping to end the oppression of blacks, it will end the oppression of Hispanics.
That's not the point.
These robots aren't *dirty mexicans*
Face it, some xenophobes would rather burn their money on robot's that comes with an English manual than a spanish speaking migrant.
Funny. The people I know that hire "dirty Mexicans" usually end up hiring them for life. They treat their employees as family and their kids as their own. For that matter, I haven't seen a farmer or rancher yet that didn't put his "hired hand's" kids through college. Granted, these weren't migrant workers, but illegals with "anchor babies", but dirty Mexicans (your words, not mine) nonetheless.
I'm afraid you have no idea as to what you are talking about. Spouting negative stereotypes won't make you look any smarter.
Have you done any research on these programs at all? I'm guessing not.
.0625%. I think they can afford it. If they can't, let the state governments of WI, MI, IN, IL, NY and OH pay for it. I eat fish farmed or caught locally in Texas. Why am I paying for fisheries in Wisconsin?
Not really. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure these are worthy causes, but not causes that MY tax dollars should be paying for. Let's look at your examples:
Your second example is the soybean tech research. Did you know that soybean is one of the three main agricultural exports of the U.S.?
Then let those who eat soybeans pay for it. Cut the federal funding, farmers and "the soybean industry picks up the slack, soybean prices go up to cover the federal dollars lost, those who eat soybeans pay the higher price, and everyone's tax dollars are saved. Or, let the soybean farming community pay for it.
How about the conservation of the Great Lakes, which supports a $4 billion dollar fishing industry (to say nothing of the massive amounts of cargo floated through)? Why is this a waste of money?
I never said it was wasted money. I just shouldn't be the one paying for it. If it's a $4 billion dollar fishing industry, then that industry can afford to pay for it themselves. That is less that
My point is that nearly all of these programs should be paid for by the industries or state they help. There were 10,000 products listed on that page from 2006 alone. That federal money could be better spent on programs that everyone benefits from, especially since everyone is paying for it. Better yet, cut my taxes!
That's all a pittiance in price compared to a Mars program
True, what I listed is a very small percentage of what the Mars program will cost. However, I only listed a few out of the nearly 10,000 programs that are ID'd as pork. Now I'm not judging these programs. I'm sure some of them are very worthy causes. However, many of these programs are redundant and nearly all of them should be paid for by either local governments or private interests. You;ll notice on my list that $3,625,000 went to CA to study "Grape Genomics Research Center" and $3,625,000 went to NY for "Center for Grape Genetics". How about we let the wineries or CA and NY study grapes on their own or at least merge these programs since they are studying the same damn thing! Why are 7.3 million dollars of my tax dollars used to study grape genetics every single year? I'd much rather NASA or some other national program that everyone benefits from get the money. Better yet, give it back!
MO $987,000National Center for Soybean Technology (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
VT $750,000Environmentally safe products (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
CA $1,929,000Exotic pest diseases (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
I $2,500,000For the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Control (Conservation Programs)
IA $1,775,000Iowa Biotechnology Consortium (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Special Research Grants)
MD $3,625,000Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
NY $3,625,000Center for Grape Genetics (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
TX $546,000Hispanic Leadership in Agriculture (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
MS $1,433,000Mississippi Valley State University, Curriculum Development (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
MI $1,350,000Pasteurization of shell eggs (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
CA $3,625,000Grape Genomics Research Center (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
WI $8,000,000Nutrient Management Laboratory (Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities)
$18,000,000Facilities in rural communities with extreme unemployment (Rural Community Advancement Program)
$18,250,000Technical assistance grants for rural water and waste systems (Rural Community Advancement Program)
AK $25,000,000Rural and native villages in Alaska (Rural Community Advancement Program)
MD $6,000,000Chesapeake Bay activities (Conservation Programs)
OH $1,145,000Center for Innovative Food Technology (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research and Education Activities - Federal Administration)
I am tired of seeing this admin push a direction and not funding it adequately.
Almost true.
I am tired of seeing this admin push a direction and congress not funding it adequately.
There! NOW it's true. Remember, congress controls the purse strings.
Payments were deferred until then because 2008 was the year the district was scheduled to finish making state loan repayments under its previous loan plan, according to the Contra Costa story.
Also, I noticed the state got their money before asking IBM to forgive its debts. Why doesn't IBM ask the state to give their money back as well?
Really? How do you know? Maybe we should bring in some other sources. Here is a few:
Here's one from NASA, that goes back 800,000 years and shows that we are in a "Little Ice Age"
Here's one from SEED that goes back 140 years and shows that we are 0.4 degrees C above where we were in 1860 AD. SEED, btw, seems to be a biased source. Anyplace that is hawking a solar powered backback has something to gain from GW.
Here is something from the guys that did the first site I mentioned:
So who do you believe? I've shown three different sources with three different models. Which one do you go by? Who says your models are better? Scientists? Scientists made all three models. What makes one any better than the others?
Actually, a quick look at scotese.com will show that someone who fails to site any source for his data made a website that shows that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with. I could go and make a website with lots of fancy graphs and graphics too... but if I don't cite sources for the data, then it doesn't mean a damn thing.
Well, if you can't defeat the argument, attack the source. There methods are explained in plain English HERE if you care to take the time to read them. It appears that neither one of us knows what you are talking about.
I very respectfully disagree. It seems to me that scientists who question global warming tend to lose their jobs. Here is one example from the Wiki page on Richard Lindzen (emphasis mine):
Another quote from Lindzen:
Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology, had his educational credentials challenged for question GW.
Dr. Griffin, a NASA chief almost lost his job recently for questioning GW. Here's an example of the ridicule scientists face just for questioning GW: The chorus of outrage over the NASA chief's global warming comments were led by a well-known climate scientist within NASA. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "I almost fell off my chair," he told NPR's Morning Edition.
The statement "indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change," he added to ABC News. There's more, but it's late and this is a dead thread anyway.
Exactly! Do you know where we "need" to be? I don't. According to Richard S. Lindzen in Newsweek, A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Is he right? I don't know.
Who is Richard S. LIindzen? According the MIT page:
According to Wikipedia:
So I'm not going to debate weather (pun?) or not the earth is getting warmer, although, there are a few sites who point out that some of the locations of the temperature monitoring stations are poor. I will however question the doomsday scenarios that have been projected as the result of temperatures rising 0.2 degrees C.
Climate change is fact, and solid science.
Very true. A quick look at climate history will show that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with, well before the SUV was invented and Bush was elected. It will also show that we are actually in a cool period and global warming will get us back to where we need to be!
Only in countries where there is a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo has the issue been politicized.
Right, and the countries that are interested in changing the status quo are NOT politicizing the issue? I get it, since they are on YOUR side, it's not political, but those with different views are politicizing the issue.
You voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you can be mislead by a bungling fool like George Bush, how can we trust you as President to deal with world leaders who are actually intelligent?
I believe that question has already been asked during the CNN sponsored debates.
Why is it wrong to kill a whale and not a cow or pig or chicken?
I eat all three, so why should I care for Willy the Whale?
Because the cow, pig and chicken you ate was born and raised with the sole purpose of becoming your meal. When these Eskimos start "ranching" whales, they can eat them.
Does that much crude go into plastics? I figured that the majority of oil was going to fuels. Would it be better for these guys to work with the current projects that are turning sugars into fuel rather than plastics?
One of the mods on this post is "Redundant". I'm curious, how does the first post get modded "Redundant"?
I agree with the assumption that the new solar panels could be corrupting the systems. With the new solar panels, the systems are given more power. And as we all know...
POWER CORRUPTS!
Maybe they can't recognize siblings at all. Maybe the genetics are close enough so that the plant can not distinguish its own root from that of its siblings.
Just a thought.
It completely sucked. It left you with thinking "he either got shot.. or didn't get shot."
I guess their main objective was to leave question, but leave everyone realizing that he's got to spend the rest of his life in anxiety, wondering if he's going to get shot at any time.
Their main objective was to have everyone talking about it, weighing in with their own theories as to what happened as the screen went black. I think it worked flawlessly.
You may not like it, but you are still talking about it. Isn't that the goal of art? Not to produce something that everyone likes, but to produce something that has people thinking and talking about long after it's gone. You have to admit, it is brilliant!
Yes, if I am shopping for insurance that will give me a huge discount for having perfect eyes. The insurance would be to protect me if something really out of the blue happens or I suffer from a currently undiagnosed illness.
And the bolded part is the key. Just because you are genetically inclined to have a disease, you may never get it or it may be 100% treatable. For example, genetically, I'm too blind to drive. I wore glasses for years and had the eye surgery about a year and a half ago. My vision is now better than 20/20, uncorrected. However, a genetic scan will still show that I'm blind as a bat. Just as someone with the gene for diabetes may never show any symptoms because the eat an Atkins diet and exercise regularly. It would be discrimination to charge that person higher rates. Another example would be that black people are more likely to suffer from cycle cell anemia. Statistics also show that black people are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods than say Asians. In poor neighborhoods, statistics show that you are more likely to "get a cap in your ass". Should black people pay higher rates? Good luck getting that past the ensuing lawsuits.
If I have speeding tickets, and my auto insurance carrier finds out about it, is that discrimination?
No, speeding is something you can control. However, would it be fair for your insurance company to raise your rates because you have bad vision? Granted, you can treat your condition through prescription eye-wear, contact lenses or surgery, just like you can treat diabetes through diet, exercise and/or insulin.
Can we expect (hope for) laws preventing this information being retrieved or considered when calculating insurance premiums or other times when this may lead to discrimination?