No, I'm not being thick. I was expecting actual misinformation such as "volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels", "Antarctic ice is not melting", "the planet's temperature is not increasing", "the warming is due to increased solar output" and so on. If you ask me, the misinformation is coming from the other side, you know, the one that doesn't have actual evidence on their side so they need to fabricate it.
As for your "short period of time" claim, I did not see a date in the first article you posted, and it also provides no time frame for when the prediction holds. How you could consider that to be a prediction already proved incorrect, much less misinformation, is beyond me.
Those are predictions about the future, as noted by the future tense form "will X". Think about what you would need to do so show those statements are misinformation. You don't have a crystal ball, do you? Even if you do are could conclusively show the predictions are inaccurate, that still doesn't demonstrate willful dissent of misinformation, just someone making an incorrect prediction.
Again, could you give some misinformation that is regularly spewed by the left about climate change?
the left is so wound up about the topic they are spewing lies and misinformation regularly
Could you give some examples of misinformation that is regularly spewed?
I've always wondered how big of a generator you would need to keep an electric car running continuously, and whether it would be feasible to just tow it behind you on a trailer. Maybe make those available to rent so that people can make long trips on their electric car. It would probably be cheaper to rent than an actual car, and the money you'd save from using an electric car for most of the year would easily offset the cost of renting the generator once in a while.
Back when they first made the RAV4-EV there was a trailer that you could pull behind it to extend the range. It used a 500cc motorcycle engine and was not too big. I have been interested in this concept for a long time, it seems to be a great way to alleviate range anxiety.
No, it is not. It sounds like a great way to earn a whole bunch of money from somebody who is having repeated brain farts about what the law actually says.
Even if you win (and that's a big if, considering you are an individual vs. a company with armies of lawyers on staff) the most you will ever see is that your copyright gets upheld and you MAY recover attorney's fees. Unless you can prove Qualcomm maliciously and purposefully filed an false DMCA claim you aren't getting jack. If you are a contributor to an open source project are you really going to give up hundreds of hours of your life and thousands of dollars out of pocket to defend your portion of the copyright on the code? On the slight chance that judge says "yep that's your code" and pays your lawyers? Seems like a huge risk for a very modest reward, if you win you are only out the years it took to litigate the matter but if you lose you could wind up liable for damages for infriging copyright on your own code (now Qualcomm's code).
This is why the DMCA is bullshit, it's not enough that corporations have extended copyright to life+infinity, even if they don't own the copyright laws like this allow large corporations to abuse the already fucked-up system. Like global thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play.
"He was studied extensively by doctors for the rest of his life and died of coronary artery disease in 1987 at the age of 75. "
You sure about that 2007 thing?
GP was referring to the arrest of the Radioactive Boy Scout, not Atomic Man.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol
