And the F-35 replaces the F-18, F-15, F-16, A-8, A-10 and the Harriers. The 3 versions they will have is a huge SAVINGS because it replaces so many other planes. Of course, the author also doesn't adjust for inflation which is a huge factor. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to cut from the Pentagon, or even from the F-35 program, I'm just saying that the rational given here makes no sense at all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Why bother to add this? Oracle is a very credit worthy company with large assets. In contrast, student loans have a very high default rate and are risky to lenders (or the government if they assure them).

Obviously it was added to try to create some outrage where none rightly exists.

Actually, one of the benefits of private equity is that they usually DO think of the long term because they don't have to worry about things like their stock tanking and the short term thinking that goes with quarterly reporting.

I pulled them from a VERY stinking place, some place most people never go, the actual data. Take a look at the IPCC forecasts from 1999 IPCC now take a look at actual data from 1999 to 2012 at NOAA (or Hadley CRUT).

It clearly shows that while there has been warming it has been lower than the low forecast.

If you don't want to sift through the data (although I encourage you to do so and see for yourself), here's an article from an anti-denier site showing Hansen's 1988 predictions similarly being low. Note that this site is in the business of proving that global warming is real, their bias is strong and their data is suspect but even they clearly admit that actual temperatures are below the forecast.

These aren't cherry picked examples either, take most past temperature predictions and chart them against actual and you'll see that the rise is less than predicted. Or check the IPCC predictions from edition to edition and you'll see that they are slowly moving down in the near term (although often have global warming shift into high gear a few decades hence).

To be clear, I'm not a denialist. I do think global warming is real and a problem. But I think Climate Science is a lot like economics, they have a pretty good idea what's going on and you'd be foolish to ignore them, but you'd also be foolish to think that they have everything fully figured out or that they aren't missing some really big and important factors in their analysis.

It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution in China Global warming lull down to China's coal growth. While I certainly believe the earth has warmed and humans have some blame I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the media's representation of Climate Change for reasons like this.

Another straw man about Capitalism, the one about how it's only price that matters. Quality and other factors are integral to Capitalism. If your bread is of such quality that the other bread seems "terrible" in comparison and yours only cost $.05 more (in 2012 US dollars) then your bread will sell very well. The exception would be commoditized products wherein price is the prime determinant. But to be commoditized the quality has to be indistinguishable so your example doesn't work there either.

More importantly, however, is that the only alternative yet presented to "the invisible hand" is some bureaucrat(s) deciding for us. If I prefer to eat the terrible bread and spend the saved money on something else who's this guy to tell me I should prefer the other bread? Don't get me wrong, Capitalism stinks. It just stinks less than every other system implemented to date.

That's only how straw man capitalism works, not real world capitalism. In real world capitalism if bread made with honey were actually a superior product then although the CEO of an entrenched bread company might not want to produce it a CEO of an upstart would realize she could raise her pay by producing and selling it thus gaining market share, enriching her investors and leaving the entrenched bread company in the dust.

Of course, in "capitalism" as practiced by the US right now the entrenched bread company would get the government to pass some regulation that seemed reasonable but that was actually designed to hamper the competition. Perhaps new labeling or packaging requirements that, due to scaling effects, would impose much higher costs per unit on small producers.

It most certainly does. Feel free to show a citation to the contrary.

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.