According to Stewart and Trussell, there are about 3,000 pregnancies from rape that couldn't be prevented with timely medical care post-rape. Compare that to 1.6 million births to unwed mothers. It seems that abstinence really would work a lot better to lower low-income births. At least if you cannot afford to support the potential child that could result...
See Edward Snowden. Heck, just have a Federal law enforcement agency request it and the State Department will revoke your passport. Meaning all that has to happen is a Federal LEA decide you're a person of interest or "under investigation" - no charges - and you can have your ability to enter another country eliminated.
How about when the atmosphere is considerably cleaner today, than it was 100 years ago? Lung/respiratory issues are considerably less today than they were even 30 years ago (at least here in the US). Even though energy consumption is way up.
But how about climate effects? That's a different issue. I'm all for clean air - and it is considerably cleaner now than it was 30 years ago (and, in the populated areas, probably 100 years ago). But making wholesale changes because of incomplete data about climate? It is too early to tell - we simply do not have even a complete cycle of data to work with, and that is really the reason the models are all quite a bit off from the observed data.
I don't have to share my information with corporations, but when the IRS comes asking to see my last 7 years of tax receipts, or the ATF comes to "inspect" the storage of my firearms, I either provide the information they ask or take a ride to jail. The ultimate power over individuals resides in Government; it is because of that power that corporations pay billions to those who run Government - to try to get a little control, however briefly, over that power. But rest assured, it is Government who can demand information from you - and if you don't provide it, they can choose to simply lock you away. No trial needed.
In the US, it seems that the corporations are collecting the data at the demand of Government. They are doing the bidding of the Government out of self-preservation, not a motive profit. See PRISM for clarification. The NSA demands, and with the force of the US Government behind it, there's not much Google, Apple or other corporations can do to say "no".
If I don't like the present Administration, and I voted against it, does it go away? No - more people voted for it than against it. Much like your Facebook analogy. Your individual desire does not make or break any single institution.
But that's not the point; the point is - like you - we can choose to NOT interact with Facebook. No page, no e-mails, nothing (for the record, I never signed up for Facebook and have zero interaction with that company). Now try to not interact with a Government you do not agree with. You have no choice but to obey its laws, pay its taxes, observe its commands - or you end up in prison. Facebook, Cisco, and other corporations cannot change the rules on you and then force you to associate with them and live by their rules; only Government can do that.
Between Government and corporations, the former has all the power - which is why the latter gives so much money to those in control of the former, for their own benefits. But understand that if Government didn't have absolute power and sway over your life, corporations wouldn't give Government a second look. It is the power of Government that rules, and corporations try to influence it. But it's still the power of Government.
How do we know the suggested actions (cutting CO2 emissions) are the right thing to do? We simply do not have enough data to decide either way. Would your boss allow you to make a decision with less than half the required data in hand? Would he bet the company on that decision? That's what is happening here.
Is the NASA GISS data uncorrected? What does the raw data show? The satellite and balloon data is raw - and covers the entire world. GISS has some very large holes in its cover, resulting in extrapolation distance up to a few thousand kilometers.
As far as the models go - do ANY models show the essentially flat-line that the data does? If not - it doesn't matter how they were retrofitted to match a 1979 starting date - a function with a slope will never match a function without a slope, regardless of the intercept.
Is the data in error? Rather than focus on the messenger, address the message: satellite data does not show the warming that has been predicted by the models. When data and models conflict, it is always the model that is wrong.
1979 is a great starting point as that's the start of the satellite record. Choosing an earlier date isn't possible, and choosing a later date would willfully edit part of the record. Starting in 1979 includes ALL the data, and also is covered by the models.
More importantly, every climate scientist will readily agree that the PDO, ENSO, NAO, and ADO have huge impacts on the global climate. And they will also readily agree that those oscillations are on the order of 30-60 years for a complete cycle. Given that we have less than one cycle worth of good data (satellite based, so as to accurately and consistently measure temperature across the globe), it is rather unwise to build "science is settled" models from that incomplete data set. No engineer or scientist would suggest building models based on less than a single cycle of data...
You cannot toss out data that does not fit into your model; you have to change your model to explain/include the observed data. Data trumps every time. The IPCC models do not reflect actual, measured data - and thus they are wrong. Go ahead, explain the data in that graph - how temperatures haven't come close to the levels of warming reflected in even the most conservative IPCC model.
You might want to check the weights of the Land Rover Discovery, they are right up there from 4500 to 5400 pounds, really close to the F150. The point isn't that aluminum is "new" in a car (although the scale of production of the F150 will be unprecedented; in a 4 year run of F150s they will exceed the total production of all Land Rovers since 1948 - all models), but that it will be used to make a lighter vehicle. Something the Land Rovers (all models) are decidedly not (they are all exceedingly heavy; of course, that is one reason they have great traction in all conditions - weight makes sure the wheels have purchase on the ground).
The Range Rover has an aluminum body. They recently made the change, and in doing so brought the weight down below 5500 pounds. They are still incredibly heavy vehicles - aluminum or not.
NONE OF THE MAJOR CORPORATIONS PAYS MORE THAN A PITTANCE OF THE TAXES DUE IN ANY NATION!!
And you know why that is? It's not because the major (and even minor) corporations declare it, it's because the Governments of those nations set up the rules that allow it. Direct your rage where it belongs - not at the players in the game, but at the rule-makers and the referees - the Governments
Play/pay by the rules, and tax avoidance. Those companies that people bemoan paying so little/nothing in taxes? They are actually playing by the rules. The rules set up by Governments that favor big/friendly donors. They are playing by the rules - it's just that those who wrote the rules wrote them so that the little guy gets squeezed.
Don't blame MegaHyperMaxiCorp for playing by the rules; blame those in Government who wrote and enforce the rules. It's not the players in the game, it's the rules committee and referees
Slashdot Mirror
According to Stewart and Trussell, there are about 3,000 pregnancies from rape that couldn't be prevented with timely medical care post-rape. Compare that to 1.6 million births to unwed mothers. It seems that abstinence really would work a lot better to lower low-income births. At least if you cannot afford to support the potential child that could result...
See Edward Snowden. Heck, just have a Federal law enforcement agency request it and the State Department will revoke your passport. Meaning all that has to happen is a Federal LEA decide you're a person of interest or "under investigation" - no charges - and you can have your ability to enter another country eliminated.
And when said Government decides to revoke your passport? A corporation cannot stop you from traveling; the Government can.
How is it denying science to note that measured, empirical data is at odds with models?
How about when the atmosphere is considerably cleaner today, than it was 100 years ago? Lung/respiratory issues are considerably less today than they were even 30 years ago (at least here in the US). Even though energy consumption is way up.
But how about climate effects? That's a different issue. I'm all for clean air - and it is considerably cleaner now than it was 30 years ago (and, in the populated areas, probably 100 years ago). But making wholesale changes because of incomplete data about climate? It is too early to tell - we simply do not have even a complete cycle of data to work with, and that is really the reason the models are all quite a bit off from the observed data.
I don't have to share my information with corporations, but when the IRS comes asking to see my last 7 years of tax receipts, or the ATF comes to "inspect" the storage of my firearms, I either provide the information they ask or take a ride to jail. The ultimate power over individuals resides in Government; it is because of that power that corporations pay billions to those who run Government - to try to get a little control, however briefly, over that power. But rest assured, it is Government who can demand information from you - and if you don't provide it, they can choose to simply lock you away. No trial needed.
In the US, it seems that the corporations are collecting the data at the demand of Government. They are doing the bidding of the Government out of self-preservation, not a motive profit. See PRISM for clarification. The NSA demands, and with the force of the US Government behind it, there's not much Google, Apple or other corporations can do to say "no".
If I don't like the present Administration, and I voted against it, does it go away? No - more people voted for it than against it. Much like your Facebook analogy. Your individual desire does not make or break any single institution.
But that's not the point; the point is - like you - we can choose to NOT interact with Facebook. No page, no e-mails, nothing (for the record, I never signed up for Facebook and have zero interaction with that company). Now try to not interact with a Government you do not agree with. You have no choice but to obey its laws, pay its taxes, observe its commands - or you end up in prison. Facebook, Cisco, and other corporations cannot change the rules on you and then force you to associate with them and live by their rules; only Government can do that.
Between Government and corporations, the former has all the power - which is why the latter gives so much money to those in control of the former, for their own benefits. But understand that if Government didn't have absolute power and sway over your life, corporations wouldn't give Government a second look. It is the power of Government that rules, and corporations try to influence it. But it's still the power of Government.
How do we know the suggested actions (cutting CO2 emissions) are the right thing to do? We simply do not have enough data to decide either way. Would your boss allow you to make a decision with less than half the required data in hand? Would he bet the company on that decision? That's what is happening here.
Is the NASA GISS data uncorrected? What does the raw data show? The satellite and balloon data is raw - and covers the entire world. GISS has some very large holes in its cover, resulting in extrapolation distance up to a few thousand kilometers.
As far as the models go - do ANY models show the essentially flat-line that the data does? If not - it doesn't matter how they were retrofitted to match a 1979 starting date - a function with a slope will never match a function without a slope, regardless of the intercept.
You won't get it because the data is, in fact, correct. His graph is correct. So rather than address the data they will attack the messenger.
Is the data in error? Rather than focus on the messenger, address the message: satellite data does not show the warming that has been predicted by the models. When data and models conflict, it is always the model that is wrong.
1979 is a great starting point as that's the start of the satellite record. Choosing an earlier date isn't possible, and choosing a later date would willfully edit part of the record. Starting in 1979 includes ALL the data, and also is covered by the models.
More importantly, every climate scientist will readily agree that the PDO, ENSO, NAO, and ADO have huge impacts on the global climate. And they will also readily agree that those oscillations are on the order of 30-60 years for a complete cycle. Given that we have less than one cycle worth of good data (satellite based, so as to accurately and consistently measure temperature across the globe), it is rather unwise to build "science is settled" models from that incomplete data set. No engineer or scientist would suggest building models based on less than a single cycle of data...
Observed data does not support the models. Exactly opposite of what you just claimed.
You cannot toss out data that does not fit into your model; you have to change your model to explain/include the observed data. Data trumps every time. The IPCC models do not reflect actual, measured data - and thus they are wrong. Go ahead, explain the data in that graph - how temperatures haven't come close to the levels of warming reflected in even the most conservative IPCC model.
Except that the models do NOT match reality. When empirical data and models collide, it's the models that are wrong.
Floyd Kramer! FLOYD KRAMER for Christ's sake!
Not to mention the great Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull...
President Obama responsible, the buck stops there? That's racist! You must be a jackbooted Thuglican... /sarc
Oh for the days when Presidents took responsibility for the actions of their Administrations...
You might want to check the weights of the Land Rover Discovery, they are right up there from 4500 to 5400 pounds, really close to the F150. The point isn't that aluminum is "new" in a car (although the scale of production of the F150 will be unprecedented; in a 4 year run of F150s they will exceed the total production of all Land Rovers since 1948 - all models), but that it will be used to make a lighter vehicle. Something the Land Rovers (all models) are decidedly not (they are all exceedingly heavy; of course, that is one reason they have great traction in all conditions - weight makes sure the wheels have purchase on the ground).
I've done beam-forming coefficient calculations in it...
The Range Rover has an aluminum body. They recently made the change, and in doing so brought the weight down below 5500 pounds. They are still incredibly heavy vehicles - aluminum or not.
NONE OF THE MAJOR CORPORATIONS PAYS MORE THAN A PITTANCE OF THE TAXES DUE IN ANY NATION!!
And you know why that is? It's not because the major (and even minor) corporations declare it, it's because the Governments of those nations set up the rules that allow it. Direct your rage where it belongs - not at the players in the game, but at the rule-makers and the referees - the Governments
.
Play/pay by the rules, and tax avoidance. Those companies that people bemoan paying so little/nothing in taxes? They are actually playing by the rules. The rules set up by Governments that favor big/friendly donors. They are playing by the rules - it's just that those who wrote the rules wrote them so that the little guy gets squeezed.
Don't blame MegaHyperMaxiCorp for playing by the rules; blame those in Government who wrote and enforce the rules. It's not the players in the game, it's the rules committee and referees
.
When you have to force people to consume your culture (via taxation), perhaps your culture really isn't as important as you think it is...