Comment Re:really? (Score 1) 185
The year is 2014, and these "scientists" are just NOW realizing that the ocean plays a key role in global climate change?
No, they've known this for a long time. Next question?
The year is 2014, and these "scientists" are just NOW realizing that the ocean plays a key role in global climate change?
No, they've known this for a long time. Next question?
a new parabolic dish that increases the sun's radiation by 2,000 times
Nope.
Dude decided to defy the gods and give humans the gift of friggin' technology just because he felt it was the right the thing to do. For his kindness he was chained to a rock and is disemboweled every day for eternity.
And what does he ask in return? Nothing. He's just like "Nah dudes, I ask something in return for it's not a gift. And this whole "eternal torment" thing? Don't worry about it, I'm not going to hold y'all responsible for my decisions." Total bro.
You mean, like Canada? It has a 26% rate, compared the US's 40% rate. Yeah, third-world hell holes like Canada always whore around with those low numbers, right?
The nominal tax rate is immaterial, it's the effective tax rate that's the material factor.
did FOR beat AGAINST?
Only in terms of numbers, in terms of net worth Against had it by a landslide.
It's about damned time we started building new nukes
I've been a proponent of nuclear power for years, but given how fast the cost of solar power has been falling, I think the time for investing heavily in nuclear power has passed.
The real denialists are, and always have been, the ones who think science is never to be questioned.
I hear Creationists using that line a lot.
Well, i guesd i'm one of your denialist because i have yet to hear an explanation to why all the sudden a long standing natural occurance is given more weight than when it previously naturally occured which was forever. Well, i taje that back. I have yet to hear an explaination that isn't convoluted and makes me laugh.
You mustn't of been listening very hard then, because the concern is that this "long standing natural occurrence" is being unnaturally accelerated and during other times when it "previously naturally occurred" at accelerated rates it resulted in mass extinction and damage to biodiversity.
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions,
So you want to keep performing scientific research, but not use that research to inform our actions? That's... genius.
often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
Oh yeah, that's a real problem with a lot of political systems; too many scientists making policy and not enough career politicians and business lobbyists. Haw haw haw.
Why?
So that when they do things like fire tear gas at journalists, there's no one with a phone out to record it.
I can't imagine this being useful to any sort of authoritarian power in any regular way.
I'd say you lack imagination then, because the first thing that came to my mind was "Boy I bet the police in Ferguson would love to be able to disable people's phones right now."
Used on people en masse it'd be a great way for governments impede and control the flow of information around all sorts of events.
The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone