What's more important, having a free society with a vigorous economy, or the ability of political apointees and bureaucrats to decree rules, bans, and burdens on us based on secret science that by definition can't have a concensus?
Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?
Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.
Have you not see the stupid lawsuits brought by fringe environmentalists that greatly drive up the cost of much economic activity for little or no benefit? Have you not seen stupid government regulations that either prohibit various activities or greatly drive up the cost of various economic activities for little or no benefit, or even create actual harm? Surely you can't believe that ALL rules are good rules that must be imposed according to the whims, agendas, or mistakes of bureaucrats and political apointees? Is your thinking that all politicians are evil and untrustworthy, but bureaucrats and political apointees are all sages, angels, sweetness and light? Or is it even simpler: bureaucrats sounds like Democrats and therefore have your unthinking support?
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything.
The EPA is part of the government. If you have little faith in the government, why would you want it to be easy for them to act using unpreproducible or other bad science? It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Surely you don't believe that all of government is filled with bad actors with the one incredible exception of EPA, staffed by only angels and sages instead of political apointees and bureaucrats?
I can see you're trying, but you're not making much progress in getting it right. Is there somebody you know that could coach or tutor you? Maybe all you need to succeed is just a little nudge at the right time or place.
"Muddy the discussion"? You mean like having two opposing viewpoints represented? Having an actual discussion instead of choir practice? Well, that's the problem isn't it? Far too many people are here for choir practice instead of discussion, and a lot of that "music" is pretty crappy given the varous claims about geeks and "superior" intellects. Too few people post correct information about this and related topics.
And your crack about "same worn-out arguments" cuts both ways. Or at least you would realize it if you have any genuine insight. The right answer doesn't change just because you're tired of reading it.
A standing president tried to warn the American people about the Military Industrial Complex. What did that do? Not a damn thing. Should you be surprised? Not really. George Orwell warned you about all of this other shit over sixty years ago. No one listened. No one believed it could ever happen. And now it has happened. And there are no vehicles left for you to use to change or stop it.
Not many years before that warning the US devoted about 40% of GDP to defense spending. The long term trend of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has been a long decline until today where only aroud 5% of GDP is spent on defense. That wouldn't happen if the "MIC" were all powerful as some people mistakenly claim.
There appears to be a gap between the facts of history and your theories.
If you're in their crosshairs, you'll get bagged, tagged and shipped off to Gitmo, which is what would have happened to Snowden if was caught before he fled.
There is essentially no chance of that happening. The only prisoners sent to Guantanamo were people known or believed to be members of al Qaida, or its affiliates. That doesn't describe Snowden. Or are you calling Snowden an al Qaida terrorist?
What they ARE doing is building up a retroactive database of our information, so that its friends can comprehensively destroy us or our reputation at a moment's notice.
What you posted there doesn't seem to support that claim. Would you care to provide an actual example of that happening to an ordinary American (or Briton, or Canadian, or Australian, or New Zealander) with no involvement in terrorism or organized crime? Do you have in mind someone running or office, or what? There doesn't seem to be much to your claim.
The US is positioning US marines in Australia, fully armed and munitioned (so called firing range practice), as a measure against China.... Hmm, to me it sounds like more the number you would need to take over and occupy the Australian government parliament should they disobey.
Have you failed to see how often a preferred ally of the US, suddenly becomes a distant ally, than a country of concern and finally a supporter of terrorism, as they refuse to obey US government dictates. Along with that goes regime change and bringing of US favoured 'er' democracy or autocracy or total chaos in order to remove actual democratic governments.
Most people fail to see that since it doesn't actually happen.
.... I do believe that they lose all reason when it comes to pleasing the US.
Rather like many do when discussing..... hating the US?
Well, there is plenty of madness to go around, isn't there? I seem to recall a certain faction of the NZ political establishment thought cozying up to the People's Republic of China was a better "fit" for NZ than allying with the US. I wonder what the people in Hong Kong would think, or the Philippines? Of course, what could possibly go wrong? What madness.
John Schwartz reports at the NY Times that prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities...
Its simple to get right. You didn't, and still haven't.
And yet you still haven't successfully identified either the topic of the story or who the story is centered on. If you can't comprehend something that simple it's a safe bet that you don't have a meaningful understanding of the science of climate change, which leaves you in the cargo cult enthusiast category.
Maybe you should be planting trees, it would be more useful than your post, and it would keep you out of trouble.
So you are claiming that George Soros is a climate scientiest producing climate models and studies that dispute various aspects of climate change in addition to being a currency manipulator, business man, one of the richest men in the world, and a left wing activist and financier? That is fascinating. I don't suppose you have any documentation to back that up, do you?
Nope, its the people who have to listen to the same "experts" (who mostly aren't climate scientists) repeating the same arguments that disagree with the vast majority of actual climate scientists.
"Nope" ??? "Nope"?? I would call that a failure of comprehension. You do realize that the US government funds a great deal of climate research, right? And who approves the funding?? Who is it that is demanding the information?
... the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities, companies and trade groups about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change. In letters sent to seven universities, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change.
I'm glad you managed to work the "Koch brothers" in there. It shows you're "serious." (eyes rolling)
That might be insightful if it were true. Unforunately there are plenty of academics that are silenced by threats to their funding if they buck the (forced) "concensus". Witch hunts used to be concerned with brooms and cats, now they are concerned with models and views that don't conform.
It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.
I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?
Slashdot Mirror
You might think that, wouldn't you?
Sustainable Initiatives
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Entirely reasonable if your job is public housing.
Because they are addressing a specific problem with EPA?
What's more important, having a free society with a vigorous economy, or the ability of political apointees and bureaucrats to decree rules, bans, and burdens on us based on secret science that by definition can't have a concensus?
Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?
Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.
Have you not see the stupid lawsuits brought by fringe environmentalists that greatly drive up the cost of much economic activity for little or no benefit? Have you not seen stupid government regulations that either prohibit various activities or greatly drive up the cost of various economic activities for little or no benefit, or even create actual harm? Surely you can't believe that ALL rules are good rules that must be imposed according to the whims, agendas, or mistakes of bureaucrats and political apointees? Is your thinking that all politicians are evil and untrustworthy, but bureaucrats and political apointees are all sages, angels, sweetness and light? Or is it even simpler: bureaucrats sounds like Democrats and therefore have your unthinking support?
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything.
The EPA is part of the government. If you have little faith in the government, why would you want it to be easy for them to act using unpreproducible or other bad science? It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Surely you don't believe that all of government is filled with bad actors with the one incredible exception of EPA, staffed by only angels and sages instead of political apointees and bureaucrats?
What's wrong with requiring some level of scientific rigor in something before making public policy on the results?
That would impede the politically driven agenda, so it obviously can't be good.
I can see you're trying, but you're not making much progress in getting it right. Is there somebody you know that could coach or tutor you? Maybe all you need to succeed is just a little nudge at the right time or place.
"Muddy the discussion"? You mean like having two opposing viewpoints represented? Having an actual discussion instead of choir practice? Well, that's the problem isn't it? Far too many people are here for choir practice instead of discussion, and a lot of that "music" is pretty crappy given the varous claims about geeks and "superior" intellects. Too few people post correct information about this and related topics.
And your crack about "same worn-out arguments" cuts both ways. Or at least you would realize it if you have any genuine insight. The right answer doesn't change just because you're tired of reading it.
A standing president tried to warn the American people about the Military Industrial Complex. What did that do? Not a damn thing. Should you be surprised? Not really. George Orwell warned you about all of this other shit over sixty years ago. No one listened. No one believed it could ever happen. And now it has happened. And there are no vehicles left for you to use to change or stop it.
Not many years before that warning the US devoted about 40% of GDP to defense spending. The long term trend of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has been a long decline until today where only aroud 5% of GDP is spent on defense. That wouldn't happen if the "MIC" were all powerful as some people mistakenly claim.
There appears to be a gap between the facts of history and your theories.
If you're in their crosshairs, you'll get bagged, tagged and shipped off to Gitmo, which is what would have happened to Snowden if was caught before he fled.
There is essentially no chance of that happening. The only prisoners sent to Guantanamo were people known or believed to be members of al Qaida, or its affiliates. That doesn't describe Snowden. Or are you calling Snowden an al Qaida terrorist?
Snowden would end up in ordinary Federal court.
In a post above you made this claim:
What they ARE doing is building up a retroactive database of our information, so that its friends can comprehensively destroy us or our reputation at a moment's notice.
What you posted there doesn't seem to support that claim. Would you care to provide an actual example of that happening to an ordinary American (or Briton, or Canadian, or Australian, or New Zealander) with no involvement in terrorism or organized crime? Do you have in mind someone running or office, or what? There doesn't seem to be much to your claim.
The US is positioning US marines in Australia, fully armed and munitioned (so called firing range practice), as a measure against China .... Hmm, to me it sounds like more the number you would need to take over and occupy the Australian government parliament should they disobey.
You poor soul.
Australia counters Chinese threat
Ascendant China spurs increased military spending in Australia
There is a very large gap between your thinking and reality. Think of the Marines as a "trip wire" protecting Australia.
Have you failed to see how often a preferred ally of the US, suddenly becomes a distant ally, than a country of concern and finally a supporter of terrorism, as they refuse to obey US government dictates. Along with that goes regime change and bringing of US favoured 'er' democracy or autocracy or total chaos in order to remove actual democratic governments.
Most people fail to see that since it doesn't actually happen.
.... I do believe that they lose all reason when it comes to pleasing the US.
Rather like many do when discussing ..... hating the US?
Well, there is plenty of madness to go around, isn't there? I seem to recall a certain faction of the NZ political establishment thought cozying up to the People's Republic of China was a better "fit" for NZ than allying with the US. I wonder what the people in Hong Kong would think, or the Philippines? Of course, what could possibly go wrong? What madness.
Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics
John Schwartz reports at the NY Times that prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities ...
Its simple to get right. You didn't, and still haven't.
And yet you still haven't successfully identified either the topic of the story or who the story is centered on. If you can't comprehend something that simple it's a safe bet that you don't have a meaningful understanding of the science of climate change, which leaves you in the cargo cult enthusiast category.
Maybe you should be planting trees, it would be more useful than your post, and it would keep you out of trouble.
So you are claiming that George Soros is a climate scientiest producing climate models and studies that dispute various aspects of climate change in addition to being a currency manipulator, business man, one of the richest men in the world, and a left wing activist and financier? That is fascinating. I don't suppose you have any documentation to back that up, do you?
Nope, its the people who have to listen to the same "experts" (who mostly aren't climate scientists) repeating the same arguments that disagree with the vast majority of actual climate scientists.
"Nope" ??? "Nope"?? I would call that a failure of comprehension. You do realize that the US government funds a great deal of climate research, right? And who approves the funding?? Who is it that is demanding the information?
... the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities, companies and trade groups about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change. In letters sent to seven universities, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change.
I'm glad you managed to work the "Koch brothers" in there. It shows you're "serious." (eyes rolling)
There are many catalysts for laughter, ignorance being one of them. I expect you are quite easily amused.
The idea of bread mold curing infections is probably going to keep you giggling for hours.
That might be insightful if it were true. Unforunately there are plenty of academics that are silenced by threats to their funding if they buck the (forced) "concensus". Witch hunts used to be concerned with brooms and cats, now they are concerned with models and views that don't conform.
It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.
I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?
That's odd. You posted in reply to me, but I see nothing in it that addresses me. You should exercise more care in posting.
Civil asset forture isn't related to any of that. Parallel construction isn't either.
As to "fantasyland," it's aways a pleasure to deal with the uninformed and mistaken.
That Time China's State Media Ran An Article About Nuclear Strikes Against Los Angeles