What's astonishing with these rich people is that all this is insanely tasteles. Personally I'd have to invest roughly another 10 million to get all the crap removed. For instance: WTF are these fountains noisily piddling into the pool constantly and blocking the view?? Which architect had that brilliant idea?
Rich people: Lot's of money, no taste.
He said "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years"
Yes, he is promoting the idea that the ice caps are going to be gone.
You can see him claim 5-7 years here (from 2009)
BTW, it is now 5 years later and there was still ice this summer.
"Too many" is not "wrong kind"
We should be able to articulate what we intended much better than was done here, especially those people criticizing literature and editing skills. If this was a formatting error (as was indicated) then that was the problem, the letter should have indicated it. And since it was a formatting problem, it was easy to fix, as was proven in this matter.
There was no need to remove the book, and a human (not an automated response) could (and should) have politely asked for a correction. Amazon simply came across as a boor.
And "The Interview" was a problem for Kim (North Korea, not Kardashian) so what? The problem with listening to every whiner is that they get too much power in the process, and normal people start being impacted by all the various "rules" the whiners come up with that serve no purpose other than to annoy everyone else.
Hey, I just described political correctness
Instead of automatically repealing it, extend its definition of labor unions to include forms of contingent/temporary/non-FT labor - and that such definition supercedes any state definition.
Sch forms of labor would then compete with the choice of a more secure job arrangement wherever RTW is enacted, as opposed to being used as a benefits/etc. dodge for entities operating under a defective business model.
lets the magic smoke out of the storage and ram chips
You had the same electronics theory professor I did!
Not saying there is evidence it has happened. Saying it is a great idea and should have happened.
Have you ever retired a riddle by mistake?
What would you label Al Gore "the polar caps will be gone in twenty years!!!" and the people who believed in drowning polar bears?
What do you call people who said weather would be extreme and unbearable within a few years, but it never happened.
These are extraordinary claims, yet they are proven false time and time again. THE only thing Science has proven, is CO2 levels rising. The rest of the predictive outcomes have been largely falsified.
Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright and thus they lose money.
Thanks for the nostalgia! I remember when people tried to claim that with a straight face back in the 80s, but no one believed it even then. Can you imagine that someone actually said that ridiculous crap in seriousness once? I'm glad we've moved past those ludicrously mind-bending contortions and can laugh about them now, knowing full well that no one actually thinks that way anymore.
Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions
Bzzt. I can share hugs, music, friendship, laughter, pain, and joy with others, but I wouldn't call any of those "possessions".
to another, denying you use or benefit thereof.
That presumes scarcity. If I share your post on Twitter, you are not deprived of it. Neither would I be.
It is approximately right, but completely wrong. These are not mutually exclusive. Arguing approximations are perfectly accurate is itself a grave error.
We do use Newtonian Physics, not because they are correct (they are not) but rather because their approximations are within tolerances of certain deviations from accurate.
Why do not the people who have a vested interest in AGW not being true fund the research to prove it,
I'm sorry, but you have it exactly backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. AWG proponents have made some huge claims that simply have not even come close to happening. Some, have actually been proven to be false on their own face (drowning polar bears).
One cannot prove a negative. This is the basis for "Innocent until proven guilty". What you've asked for is assume guilt, and prove innocence.
As for AGW, the only thing you can prove is increase in CO2. Everything else is conjecture based on simplistic models that have been consistently proven inaccurate. Scare tactics of "by the time we prove it, it will be too late" is like religious people saying "By the time I prove to you there is a god, you're already dead and it is too late". Basically, AGW proponents are arguing Pascal's wager.
No. Deniers have made up their minds already;
You can say the same thing about the bots that have blindly accepted "experts" opinions. The problem is, many of the proponents of the AGW don't care about the science part, because they are too fucking busy crying wolf. Drowning Polar Bears was a story, until it was proven false. YET there were so many willing to believe the story, because it fit their religious narrative. Same can be said of just about anything Al Gore says, but he still attracts crowds of worshipers listening to his sermons, WHY?
There isn't much difference between the two religious camps, except one gets excused by the AGW proponents much more quickly. Why?
Until you can recognize the religious fever on your own side, and dismiss it as easily as you do the other "nutjobs" you are part of the problem.
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
