But those points are not mathematics - those are data interpretations. Is statistics a math? Yes. The interpretations? No. A salient point, nonetheless.

Don't ask me - ask California - instead of just teaching, they are adding in teaching WITH sexual orientation requirements.

I wonder if they are able to name the great LGBT scientists, or explain how evil Western Culture is today, or demonstrate how to properly apply a condom to a banana. I understand this is an article bemoaning the fate of the UK - but it is coming to the States, and we happily grease the tracks for the train.

You were right! He's already been 'scrubbed' from the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page! Those evil deniers are so sneaky!

http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

I did not know that the actual scientists were one monolithic bloc. Thanks for that. Oh - this is where you tell me anyone who disagrees is funded by the BIG Oil, PHARMA, Koch Brothers, et cetera ... right?

Quote from the very same HuufPo article you link to:

See that part where he solicited and received additional materials directly? Try that with your local financial institution. Try that with an insurance company.

Dan Rather was up front in what he was proffering to the public. Gleick didn't break this story with his name attached from the start. Rather put his career on the line; Gleick hid behind his 'courageous whistle-blowing.'

The memo is the document that purports the Heartland Institute is going to 'bad things' to the Environment. All the other documents are sourced and authentic. They also reveal personal information about employees and donors. To blithely dismiss it as "one memo" is to be disingenuous, ignorant, or deceptive.

Can you explain why the shareholders of Chrysler were bypassed in favor of the UAW, who just coincidentally are thick as thieves with SEIU? "The central issue is that the funds feel Chrysler's post-bankruptcy remuneration plans have unfairly cost the funds a great deal of value by putting unsecured debtors such as the UAW ahead of the funds' claims. They are fighting the bankruptcy by alleging that the government's TARP disbursal to Chrysler was unconstitutional and that the subsequent events amount to a covert reorganization, not Chapter 11." Yeah, no union favoring there .... Obamacare: Just curious - does your insurance company force you through legislation to buy their product? Simply because you breathe? Or has the federal government done such a thing? GM: As of January, 2012, the US government's Troubled Asset Relief Program had about $25 billion invested in GM. Break even for the government was figured at $53.98 v. the then-current share price of about $25.

Just curious - does your insurance company force you through legislation to buy their product? If so, can you tell me their name, so I can avoid them and their products? If they do not, then can you see the issue with government mandated health care? Thanks.

Are these same rules going to apply to the EU, the member governments, and municipalities as well? Of course, collecting that 2% would be just book keeping ...

As 60% of the energy usage is all the third-world countries, the answer is obvious.

You may be correct on the Chinese fire sale. However, your assertion that the taxpayers of the United States are going to see all that money recouped is patently false at this time. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576271382418887092.html http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/21/report-fed-mulling-summer-sale-of-gm-stock-would-take-big-loss/ The stock owned by the government needed to be sold at $50/share to break even. But what's 11 billion dollars when you want to raise government spending by another 1.6 trillion? A rounding error, to be sure.

"So far I haven't heard anyone blame the Rock 'n Roll music, but if social networks aren't a good enough culprit, you could also try blaming video games." Love the snide tag there, Taco. While the discussion of turning off the social media is one that is disturbing, do you think they are considering this in response to some hooligans who are staying out late, smoking a cigarette or three? Perhaps you missed the chavs and chavettes stating that this was about showing the rich and the police that this was a demonstration that they could do what they wanted. As you seem to imply that this plan is a poor one, can you suggest a better plan? Here's mine - arm all shop owners with shot guns.