Third paragraph, first sentence.

The point of this was that it wouldn't use complex models where they tweak to fit expectations. Instead it plots atmospheric CO2 against global temperature, specifically accounting for denier favorites like urban heat islands, volcanoes, poor station condition, data selection bias, and transparency. All the data is available at the site so anyone can run the numbers themselves. According to them, and by the looks of their graphs, it's a shockingly close match.

The conclusion is that the temperature rise is from human greenhouse emissions. As always, everyone is free to try to come up with more convincing evidence to the contrary.

More accurately, Eric Schmidt and daughter tag along to talk about internet access and end up thinking, "these people should really start with heated structures."

Some of us have it, but expression of the preferred set of behavioral traits only manifest in the presence of alcohol.

When someone speculates, "citation needed" doesn't usually make sense.

But if it adds something, his occasional bouts of depression were no secret. In the way of a citation, I offer his own words: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/verysick

What the summary doesn't mention, I didn't see on the petitions, and haven't seen the comments so far, is that they offered six months, instead. I'd be interested in knowing if that's accurate. Anyone?

An excellent approach. If you don't like the answer, change the question. Can we call this, "The Kirk Maneuver"?

If this anon post is actually tied to the real case we're discussing, then the answer is simple, "Don't come to us unless you have a recommendation."

If he can't program, can't demonstrate that your work is actually wrong, and can't come up with real justifications that include cost/benefit rationale, then he's useless and adding absolutely nothing to the process.

Find a diplomatic way to say so. Criticism for criticisms sake isn't helpful... it's just some kid trying to prove to everyone that's he's a smart go-getter.

It's not for me either, but that will be determined by number of people putting up their own money (or lack thereof).

Minor nitpick... but almost no one makes their own bullets. Lots of people do make and reload their own ammo with purchased bullets, primers, powder, and new or (usually) reused brass. Similar for shot shells, but with purchased shot and wad or slug and sabo.

I'm not trying to add an annoying amount of detail, I just think it's relevant for discussion of wild taxation schemes. If you were to levy an insane tax on bullets it would be a pretty big problem.