It is my understanding that the idea we use only 10% of our brain is a myth.

The full statement is:

"This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people's attention.

"This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message. We found it interesting that the ad seemed to evoke reactions more passionate than when leading alarmists compare climate realists to Nazis or declare they are imposing on our children a mass death sentence. We leave it to others to determine why that is so.

"The Heartland Institute doesn't often do 'provocative' communication. In fact, we've spent 15 years presenting the economic and scientific arguments that counter global warming alarmism. No one has worked harder, or better, on that task than Heartland. We will continue to do that -- especially at our next International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago from May 21 -- 23.

"Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we've been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.

"We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland's friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the 'realist' message on the climate."

You're right and I stand corrected. Well, actually sit at the moment, but you're still right.

I'll just put this here. It was on the ThinkProgress site for months whereas the Heartland billboard ad was stopped within 24 hours. Heartland issued an apology. ThinkProgress dropped the post silently and pretended nothing had happened.

It's in the constellation Draco.

Why is the "spokesfrog" a ... toad?

What timing! And here they're gonna be retiring the Enterprise soon.

It's fine to hypothesize one's guilt, but as I said, "Until a claim is proven, it is irrational to make a decision about that claim." Emphasis in this case on the "make a decision".

Crap. You've successfully deconstructed my entire argument.

And you have a cool username.

Bullshit. Presumption of innocence is a specialized case of rational, scientific thought. Until a claim is proven, it is irrational to make a decision about that claim.

Meh. Been there, done that. For me, 2008 was the year of the Linux desktop.

Julia Pongratz is the only citation in your listed sources for Gengis Khan's impact on climate. She arrived at this conclusion not through examination of empirical data, but through computer modeling of Khan's actions. It's an interesting hypothesis, but hardly one that can be stated as a certainty.

And back in the great earthquake of '06, folks set fire to their quake-smashed homes because their insurance covered fire but not quakes. As a result, out-of-control fires caused more damage to San Francisco than the earthquake itself.

I do ... but the post is already modded to the max. What a cruel day to be a moderator.

In that 30 seconds, the rocket traveled 22 miles.

Check out Google's Summer of Code sometime.