I thought about that but if the regulators actions are subject to review by their supervisors and ultimately by the courts they're going to be careful to make sure their actions are justified. Perhaps you could build in a negative incentive like reduction in salary for failed actions.
I've got maybe $25,000 invested in whitewater rafting equipment which has been my main form of recreation for the past 25 years.
One way to get the regulators to do their job better would be to give the bonuses of some percentage of the fines levied for breaking the regulations. That would reduce their incentive to keep their noses clean in expectation of a high paying job after their government career ends.
The system handles the current load just fine. They just haven't gone to the expense of making it doubly redundant so when a major facility goes down it causes problems. Once ADSB becomes mandatory in 2020 this will be less of an issue for a radar facility like this since each airplane will be broadcasting it's position and vector to every other ADSB equipped airplane and they won't need ground based radar to maintain separation.
Except there is no "Professional Right".
LOL. It sounds to me like your ideology just makes you blind to them. BTW, ACORN went out of business 6 years ago so you can remove it from your list.
You could change "Professional Left" to "Professional Right" and a few other words in your little pile of straw men and it would be just about as applicable.
If it's all global, why does ice melting in the arctic count as evidence of GW, but ice *expanding* in Antarctica not count as counter-evidence?
Because a simple analysis like that is seldom adequate. Scientists who have looked at the increase in Antarctic sea ice have found several reasons that combine to cause the increase. First the circumpolar winds have grown stronger apparently because of the ozone hole over Antarctica. That pushes the existing sea ice around more opening polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. Second global warming causes the ice sitting on the continent to melt and also increased precipitation which causes the water on the surface to freshen making it easier to freeze. Finally the fresher water is less dense than the warmer saltier water under it so the ocean stratifies and the the warmer saltier water is prevented from rising to the surface reducing ice melt from it.
That graph is most assuredly not the South Pole or anywhere near it. The caption says "Southern Polar 70.0S to 60.0S". Very little of Antarctica is north of 70S. It's about 1,380 miles from 70S to 90S.
As the others explained a larger wind turbine is more efficient, not just in harnessing the wind power but also in resources used to produce it. For example one big generator instead of 100 smaller ones. Another factor is that smaller wind turbines turn faster and so kill more birds.
So you don't think anything is worth trying unless you can tell ahead of time if it's going to work or not? There's a lot of energy to be extracted from waves if we can figure out how to harness them.
If your poorly constructed argument were correct, then the Earth's temperature would be increasing year upon year. However it is not, as the warmest year in recent records is 1998. We know from the fossil record that increased carbon dioxide levels are a response to global warming, not a driver
A more complete accounting of the energy balance of the Earth's geosystems includes not only the atmosphere but the oceans, land and biosphere. Natural variation will affect how energy is distributed between those areas. So even though surface atmospheric temperature may not be rising as steeply lately (and choosing 1998 is an extreme cherry pick) the oceans (where over 90% of the energy from global warming goes) have continued to warm up. Given the different heat capacity between air and water it doesn't take much of a change in ocean warming to have a major effect on atmospheric warming.
Since when is an Anonymous Coward a human being?
I'm not sure that having all of that water impact the ground before spreading would be that useful. Having the water spread out in a long spray probably is better at suppressing a fire.
In fact, the Ozone hole was there the first time it was recorded.
Not even close. Ozone levels in Antarctica started being recorded in 1956 and the ozone hole didn't appear until the 1980's. Here's the graph.
Read just about any science and you get the same thing. Everything in science is subject to revision pending new information. When you see words like "very likely" or "extremely likely" as a layman you can consider it settled science.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
