I pretty much ignore all that political bullshit about who's funding what. I care mostly about the science. I have yet to find any reason to think there will be a major overturning of the primary points of current climate theory. There are a lot of details still to be nailed down but that increasing CO2 will cause the climate to warm and the cause of increasing CO2 is primarily human in origin is not in question.

I'm usually a pretty live and let live kind of guy but IS/ISIL/ISIS need to be treated like they're treating the people who don't agree with them, with no mercy. That is come down on them like a ton of bricks.

The ISP gets paid by their subscribers to provide a link to the internet. If the demands their subscribers place on them is too much then they should up their rates or charge by bandwidth usage.

I don't know. My intelligence kind of goes away when my dick is sliding in something.

It's a draft of a paper that isn't due to be finalized until November. In the context of "something must be done right now!" November is essentially equal to right now.

I don't know how they are financially dependent on that. Don't you think we'd be studying the climate regardless of the reality of global warming?

As far as being more interested in popular opinion than truth, that argument always baffles me. There is a reality to what they are studying that can't be changed by bias or wishful thinking. As scientists their reputations a dependent accurately reporting their findings. If they are found to have purposely fudged their research their careers are over and their reputation is mud. It's possible they are wrong but if they are they are honestly wrong.

LOL. There are some local climate contrarians (to put it nicely) here in Oregon who are convinced I'm a sock puppet for David Appell. I find it amusing and an indication of how easily they latch on to erroneous ideas.

It's more about changing the way we produce energy, not curtailing it. Besides, who can be against reduction of energy use through using it more efficiently?

So you're saying our successors will be Kzinti?

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact it is possible to have flooding in the middle of a drought without ending the drought. They operate on different timescales.

Since none of the members of the panel are paid to be on it why should they care?

A new, small VoIP service should have the right to demand its packets get the same priority as any other VoIP service period. The source shouldn't matter, just the type of packets.

And with a bit of genetic engineering we could add another finger to our hands. How about another thumb outside of the pinkie?

I don't think QoS violates net neutrality. I don't have any problem with expediting certain kinds of packets that are time critical. The problem comes when you do it only for your own packets or the packets of people who have paid you to expedite them to the detriment of other producers of those kind of packets.
 

I would argue that stupidity is also being unwilling to acquire knowledge that runs counter to your ideology. The belief that ideology can trump reality is stupid.