The tequilla example is only if the seller provides all the mixers as part of the $50 purchase. Disney sure as fuck isnt going to give you an LCD if you pay $10 per movie as opposed to $5.

Your "temporal" argument is invalid. Watching the move NOW (once) for $15 includes the services of the theater. Paying $10 in 3 months is the value of the movie at that point in time. $5 is the value of the product in a year. Just like when a 2014 truck is valued today at $50k as opposed to a 2005 truck valued at $25K, goods depreciate in value even if they are unused. The consumer public generally wants what's hot today, and they pay a premium for it. Paying less a year from now is not just aniticipated, it's expected because that product doesnt have the same market value it once had.

Purchasing an aged product, and the value curve associated with that doesnt address this new billing proposal at all.

The challenge of the contect industry is to produce a good that has value, and selling it for what the public is willing to pay. That product is worth X. Not X +/- my personal environmental variables. I dont pay more or less for my print edition of The Lord of the Rings depending on whether I read it in a beautiful quiet park in mid-may under a shadey tree, or while riding a greyhound bus cross-country sitting next to a vomit-stained anarchist named Bulldog who has a bowel disorder.

A sitting justice coached the defense lawyers to use the term "tax" rather than "fine" to help secure the ruling for The Affordable Care Act. The point being that becoming a member of SCOTUS, past or present, does not preclude political ideology creeping into their beliefs, or even their rulings.

So by your reasoning you should pay $1.00 for a song you will listen to on your home theater, but only $.50 for one you will listen to on your iPod?

How about paying $30 for a bottle of tequilla if you will drink it by the shot, but $50 if you will drink margaritas?

Ooo! How about if I only have to pay $25,000 for a Ferari if I promise to only drive it on shitty roads?

You're 8 for 8, failing to read the word sarcasm... Care to go for an even 10?

You didn't even read my post, did you? Or are you just incapable of understanding it?

The first word in the damn post was "Sarcasm" and 6 out of 6 of you dipshits jump all over it ...

You zealots really need to get a grip. It was sarcasm, not blasphemy.

These are only 2 of a myriad of possibilities that could "prove" either side's argument:
1) There are evil empires of richy richites that spend billions of dollars to disprove global warming so that they can get even more rich while furthering the extinction of the human race (and their customers).
2) There are 1000's of scientists who already make damn near nothing, who are largely (or wholly) reliant on grants and activist organizations for their income. And if the undeniable facts ever state they have been wrong they will be proved incompetent in their field and that field will also be largely eliminated.


Frankly both sound like fiction to me, but in both cases it is arguable that someone is defending their livelyhood. I fail to see why one is more credible than the other.

Sarcasm tit-for-tat...

And those 97% of climate scientists would be generally paid nothing if it were determined they'd been flat out wrong (again) for the last 2 decades. At the least they'd be discredited and viewed as incompetent. The grants and foundations that make their work possible would evaporate. A cynical person would point out that pure self-preservation might encourage some to speak that which ensures their job over the truth.

Just saying...

And this is a non-partisan position. Whether you're Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Moderate, Climate Advocate, Climate Denier, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim, ..... Pick any label you want and there's a guy (pardon me, person) with a shitload of money trying to ensure that his position is the adopted position. And generally speaking people willing to shove a position down your throat, no matter how altruisitic he believes himself to be, is more often than not willing to skirt the edge of morality to achieve his ends, if not merrily dance over the line.

It does if the medium used for that ":ife" is funded with tax dollars.

There are many reasons that you're not supposed to use university faculty/government/corporate email systems for personal activity. He's not being asked to provide his personal home email account, nor his personal home computer. The University is being asked to provide access to his tax-funded work email and research data. If he's discussing how he likes to dress up as Little Bo Peep or something in those datasets, then he's misappropriating work assets for personal use, and he's not ensured privacy in that medium. If they really wanted to protect anything but the data itself they could put a gag on those who view the data/emails and disallow them to discuss or share anything not directly related to the court case.

All that being said, I'd love to know how protecting proprietary data or processes in an attempt to "avoid competitive harm" demonstrates the altruism that climate change proponents use as a blugeon against skeptics. If you're so convinced that man-made climate change is a direct threat to humankind and the global ecosystem, is [financial / research / international] competition really a defense for hiding data? Either this is the most dire situation our generation has faced and anything necessary must be done to avoid it, or its not. Apparently, it's not actually dire enough to risk losing research funding to a more "competitive" university.

I dont know what the truth actually is. But that's really the point for me. No one can prove anything definitively one way or the other. But you're right, the physical reality will tell the tale. Frankly there's no way any level of reports coming out of the IPCC is going to make China, or Asia, or the middle east all of a sudden push green policies. So unless we (the west) stop all form of trade with all of those places until they go even more green than we are now, it doesnt matter. You and I both know that we're not going to cut all trade ties with any nation or region that isnt eco-friendly. You and I also know that we wont be forcing them to be greener than the west is now, we're not going to all of a sudden stop being a consumer driven culture, and that now matter how green the west is it'll never make up the difference for those other regions polluting. So in a couple of decades we'll either be fine, or we'll be fucked, and until one or the other happens the science will not be settled. Short of massive global catestrophic upheaval our course is not going to deviate.

And yes, I know that my typo suggests that Nobel and UN are associated...

It would only be financial ruin for the entities that were invested in the premise. For the most part that would be Universities (probably very limited impact), activist organizations (total ruin) and governmental agencies like the EPA or the United Nations (which are ultimately paid for thru taxes on individuals). It would likely prove a significant benefit to far more than it would prove harmful, in terms of money or jobs.

Regardless, the person or group that could prove the whole thing a farce would be (are?) silenced thru ridicule or threats. Their lives would be (are?) ruined for speaking against those who are so deeply invested in the premise. If someone were to eventually prove it all false and bring the world into agreement, they sure as hell wouldnt be getting a Nobel prize from the United Nations, who is beating one of the biggest drums in the climate change parade. Even if they were absolutely correct they would still be condemned and threatened by every clean activist in the world for some completely illogical argument, like proclaiming they were encouraging the world to polute. All in all its far less risky to just shut up than to go against the grain, something that the left in general counts on.

I think its a near certainty that most (all) scientists fully believed in the work they started. But I also think its probably that after a decade or more of shouting from the rooftops trying desperately to prove their stance, that if they now discover they were wrong or at best grossly overstating the situation, that they cannot come out and say that now without looking like idiots. And doing so would kill their jobs in the short term, and likely end their professional careers.

They are wholly invested. They cannot deviate from the path they have started down even if it's all proven to be a farce without personal and financial ruin. They have too fully coupled their own existence to the premise (as no pure scientist would) to turn back now.

The fact that you don't think money plays a significant role in most science shows your ignorance.

In the case of climate change, there are careers hanging entirely in the balance. If there is no justification to continue to press the man made effects on climate change, there are entire businesses and organizations that will cease to exist, because their government or donated funding will evaporate. The IPCC itself is one such organization. Not to mention that there are so many people who have so heavily invested their reputation in this that if they were to be proved even mostly wrong their credibility as a scientist would be deeply wounded for life.

And it's true for many sciences. Medicine, physics, chemistry.... those people who show the most promise to create (or help further) sellable and profitable product are the ones who get the money to continue their research. For the most part there isn't investment in research if there isn't a tangible payout to be gained. And environmentalists are no different, except that in the most altruistic cases their ultimate goal would be to make themselves irrelevant by making the world absolutely perfectly eco-friendly. (Which will never happen, unless you'd like to propose hostile takeover of countries like Russia, China, most of Asia, and an appreciable portion of the middle-east, so that you can force eco-law on them.)