Just to be clear, since I was misinterpreted earlier in this post, when I wrote "questioning science" in the above post, I meant questioning science philosophically, or questioning the scientific method as a valid method.

You have constructed one hell of a strawman here. And I must say, you have masterfully taken down an imaginary argument. I can only imagine that you somehow interpreted my post to mean that anyone that questions climate change is a lunatic and that questioning climate change is questioning science. And if that was what I wrote, then your post would be insulting, but correct. But it wasn't what I wrote. There really isn't much of a way for me to respond to your argument since it is based on a false presupposition. I can only reiterate my argument and hope that your reading comprehension is stronger this time around: the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, but not popular with certain groups. For this reason, there are a lot of bullshit arguments and conspiracies thrown at it. These bullshit arguments and conspiracies are then labelled 'debate'. Now a new study comes along that partially contradicts several other studies. Should we have a 'debate' about this before the international scientific community can respond?

Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.

The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate. There is also a very noisy group of lunatics who deny all evidence and make up conspiracy theories. We can't prejudge this study, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it prior to it being thoroughly reviewed by the international scientific community--not corporations or politicians. Science self-corrects, which means that there are occasionally flawed studies and occasionally revolutionary studies. I hate to break it to you, but flawed studies outnumber revolutionary studies by orders of magnitude. This is why the scientific process is so rigorous. Science is hard.

It should only be acceptable if it is directly relevant to the case. Judges shouldn't allow the defense to go on a fishing expedition. Judges generally don't handle this well. In this case the judge used an intermediary to check the accounts and then hand over the applicable information to the defense. I'm sure the judge felt that this was an acceptable way to protect privacy. But that still classifies as a fishing expedition since the courts decide that all 'relevant' information is turned over and not just the information that the defense knew about. Thus it becomes like a search of a house for illegal guns, but since nothing was found but dope, and that is now 'relevant', it can be used against you. It pits privacy rights (which are basically nonexistent) against the individual's right to discovery ("reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence") or the government's right so search based on a warrant ("probable cause").

Your diagnosis fits under the requirements of the ADA (if you are looking for a job in the US). Any employer (of sufficient size) must make reasonable accommodations and cannot discriminate against you in the hiring process or during employment if they are aware of your disability. That is not to say that discrimination does not occur. In order for you to be protected by the ADA, the employer must be aware of the disability which will then allow them to discriminate if they are assholes. Considering the level of discrimination against people with mental illnesses, I would keep a record. You are also not required (ethically or legally) to disclose your diagnosis at any time unless you want ADA protections.

No kidding. How many space platforms have been researched, started, and then killed (NERVA, Apollo Applications, Space Station Freedom, Constellation, Prometheus, etc.)? NASA could probably do more with less if they were allowed to plan things to a reasonable extent. And if all of that wasted money was used productively, we would have had an astronaut on Mars by now.

The abuse of NASA by Congress and the President is disgraceful. Every President wants to look like Kennedy and every successive Administration or Congress wants to shit of his legacy. NASA simply gets caught in the crossfire.

Actually it should have lots of water because it is a gas giant. Jupiter is past the Frost Line. This means that water can form ice crystals past this point. Inside the Frost Line, the solar wind and radiation pressure force gaseous water out. This is one of the reasons that the inner planets have so little water. Outside, ice crystals can accumulate. This is probably what allowed the gas giants to rapidly accumulate mass before the Sun blew its nebula out of the Solar System. In fact, the planets Uranus and Neptune are commonly referred to as "ice giants" due to the significant amount of water they contain.

To summarize, Jupiter should have a lot of water.

Yes, you are a bad person. You entire post describes how you would be the victim because of someone else's suffering. It is all "me, me, me".

You have a profound lack of empathy.

But don't worry about the guilt. I doubt someone with as little empathy as you would feel any.

Of course lawyers on both sides are unhappy, one side wanting exoneration, the other wanting public human sacrifice.

No. The prosecution offered a plea deal of no jail time and recommending against deportation that was rejected by Dharun Ravi because he refused to accept guilt.

Bullshit. Picking on gay kids makes society weak. Our society will be much stronger when that type of behavior is minimized.

That is a weaselly statement. Ravi isn't being punished for Tyler Clementi's instability. He is being punished for spying on him, trying to destroy evidence, and trying to coordinate statements with a witness. He is guilty as sin for all of those crimes.

But even if he were being punished for causing Clementi's suicide, he had to have known that he was selecting an extremely vulnerable victim. He knew that Clementi was a loner and semi-closeted and was afraid of being open about it--and then he exploited him. If he were to be charged with the hypothetical crime of pushing this poor gay kid to suicide, then he wouldn't be punished for Clementi's instability. He would instead be punished for exploiting it.

You seem to be living in the fantasy world that everyone is strong and should be able to take punishment.

People are weak. They don't know how to cope. But they are still human beings and worthy of being cared for and protected. We should be outraged that this poor gay kid was driven to suicide.

This case is different that secretly filming your roommate having straight sex for exactly those reasons. Dharum Ravi exploited Tyler Clementi when he spied on him. He exploited his fears and insecurities.

Don't consider crimes like black boxes. The entire circumstances matter. The motives matter. Society had a role, no doubt. Tyler Clementi lamented that people on Ravi's twitter feed were disgusted by Clementi's relationship but not one of them called out Ravi and said that what he was doing was wrong. More than anything else, this is probably what drove him to suicide. He saw people unanimously disgusted by him with no defenders or anyone who opposed his privacy being violated. He had no faith that even if he changed roommates that conditions would get better. Think about that before you call him a coward again you fucking asshole.