For 0 to 4 degrees C it contracts but warmer than that it expands. Water Physics_and_chemistry

So life on other planets is dependent on our knowledge? Sounds doubtful. It may increase our reason to believe that such life is possible, but not whether that life actual exists/existed.

Here

Perhaps, but you have to infer that, it is NOT contained in the graph. In other words, it might support an argument for anthropogenic global warming but it does nothing to refute my claim that the graph that was supposed to be "in context" certainly wasn't.

That's pretty poor context. That graph is pure distortion. It's has the time from 1870 to now at one scale and the rest in thousands of years. Moreover, it clearly shows that temperatures have been rising for years before civilization was around and is now at the high point.

Since we are all pretty well aware that we are between ice ages it doesn't say much at all and it gives absolutely no indication if the current warming trend is usual or not.

My problem is that it'll be those in authority deciding what is "hate-filled bullshit" and, as has happened again and again in history, ultimately the definition will be "anything that is a threat to my power". Don't forget, "Democracy" was also a "dangerous idea" to governments, especially in 19th century Europe.

Ultimately, while the "will of the people" worries me at times, I'd much rather people be able to express their opinions, even ones I don't favor, than trust the government (or University, or other authority) as to what I can and can not say.

It's not just "angry conservative type opinions" but ALL opinions are potentially affected by this form of confirmation bias. Left wing, right wing, social conventions, even food preferences. Here's an excellent book on the subject.

Not to mention decades of atomic testing at Bikini and other pacific islands.

I won't argue what "campus" means but, the bill never mentions "campus". here' the text of the bill:

Senate Bill 367 (P.N. 2349) – This bill establishes the Indigenous Mineral Resource Development Act, allowing the Department of General Services to make and execute contracts or leases for the mining or removal of coal, oil, natural gas, coal bed methane and limestone found in or beneath land owned by the state or state system of higher education.

In other words, the article from Mother Jones was entirely misleading making people think of gas rigs next to dormitories when, in reality, the bill opened up all state lands pending government approval. Typical Mother Jones scare tactics.

The Templeton Foundation that funded this research is often highly criticized for religious bias. It's kind of like oil companies providing money for research. It might be good in that it provides research funding but there's always a worry that the money from an organization with a particular point of view might skew the science.

I'm not saying that this invalidates the research, but it does cast some doubt on it and the reasons it is being done.

It meant abandoning all my mods on this story but this intrigued me and I had to look up it up. In fact, while the number of smokers may have dropped the TAX REVENUES from smokers has been increasing steadily and at pace far faster than inflation. I think that lends some good evidence to sls1j's assertion that taxing pollution will lead to government dependence on that taxation. Obviously smoking and pollution aren't exactly the same but I think there's a good point made there.

There was a MUCH stronger association between employment and fracking sites.

There is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell the difference in most cases. Since "discovery" research is usually funded the researchers have quite a strong vested financial interest in it. Moreover, don't you think GlaxoSmithKline will just classify every scrap of research they possibly can as "for the sake of discovery". It'll be like Hollywood accounting.

I'm not much of a grammar Nazi but I can't help myself here. It's FEWER test, If it can be counted it's "fewer" if not, it's "less".

This is really measuring the wealth of countries, not the cheapness of beer since it measures the number of minutes worked to pay for a beer. Even the major European economies have per capita GDP's 20%-30% lower than the US when measure via PPP (Purchasing power parity).