When I hear things are "staggeringly complex" then I become 100% that policy shouldn't be set by said things.

Never mind Greenland isn't green so that should be a clue that AGW isn't close to being a problem.

And never mind that the major/minor ice ages correlate with precession and nutation of Earth and Moon rather nicely...

And, geez, on a planet where the temp swings from Ice Age to pretty-damn-warm (Roman Empire), one might want to pause and wonder if Man is actually capable of affecting climate.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html

And the Heartland paper happens to be a model of scientific analysis:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html

See for yourselves....

Uh no -- "Climate Skeptics" are taken seriously because (a) the AGW case lacks any standing and (b) the evidence, when not massaged to death by sins of commission and omission actually supports US.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html

No -- It is in fact the AGW proponents that are shrill and want a god-damn cap-n-trade for a non-existent problem.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html

Not only that, these "found no malfeasance" results are absurd on their face. They DID hide, throw away and improperly manipulate the data. At best they were wrong and at worst it was a deliberate push for AGW (which isn't happening).

If the data had been public, as it should have been, both on the tax and scientific method grounds, these asshats would not have had a chance to bamboozle the public and eat high on the hog trough of public funded science.

You pretentious fascist asshat. I routinely DO NOT CARRY ID. There is NO REASON, in a country based on liberty and freedom, to have ANY ID at all, let alone so a pig can ask you for "Your Papers please".

I'm also a photographer and the absurdity of the "don't photograph" crowd, in violation of First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments is unfathomable to me.

These people had a RIGHT to do what they did. It wasn't a privilege. The gov is clearly in the wrong here.

Have you ever thought that you shouldn't be on the road with machines weighing thousands of pounds? Cycles should have been banned 50 years ago.

You might want to look up Debates on the Constitution and First Amendment arguments where anonymity is a bulwark of free speech to deflect intimidation. Additionally we have an Amendment that reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

Contrary to the morons on the Supreme Court and and the latest fascistic thinking, this amendment means what it says. Thus, the Feds ARE restricted to the enumerated powers and everything else is reserved to the States or the People. Thus you have a right to anonymity.

Actually, not at all a valid question.

Every other formulation, and I challenge you to provide one, will implicitly or explicitly endorse some form of magical thinking. (Burden of proof always on the person making an assertion)

You are somehow assuming, as a given, that which needs to be proved.

Which just goes to show the ignorance of those in charge. You are aware, of course, that in the practice of medicine, we ROUTINELY, us drugs for purposes that they were not approved. In fact, it is beyond the FDA's purview to in any way restrict the practice of medicine and they are, by law, prevented from doing so.

Thus it is neither immoral nor illegal to market drugs for purposes beyond the FDA's approval. It is obscene that Pfizer was threatened and did not fight this upto the Supreme Court on the grounds that the FDA violated free speech and that the FDA exceeded its authority.

Why, no, we -- traditional hard-core free market folks, don't deny it exists. It's called the political economy and its particular flavor is called: fascism.

Because to have responsibility you would have to have control. As a shareholder, properly, you have none, except on inconsequential matters that require voting.

Well, not a political fantasy since the US did originate in the traditional fashion, which is homesteading, which in turn owes its pre-eminent exposition to Locke. So in point of fact, the superseding legal principle is controlling and advancing the value of the land in question, whether here or on Mars or the Moon.

Considering that DDT was in point of fact not harmful and had wiped out malaria, I still say Yes!