would he just shrug and accept his fate?
No, because those mercenaries would be acting like a government that is taxing him, and that would make them evil. He'd have to make a second Galt's Gulch island to protest his first island's statistism.
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
Your lips (keys) to God's ears.
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.
New Brunswick?
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.
She won. She will now sport a lucrative career as a public... whatever. The narrative has been formed. Political Correctness has no room for objective truth. Just like the crumbling of lies surrounding the Rolling Stone/UVA 'rape', we shouldn't be looking at facts and events. Brianna's feels are more important.
Once again, the most dangerous group to women is formed of other women.
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.
mistakes happen
Which is why we should NEVER ever stop questioning "science". Newtonian Physics is wrong, but close enough to be functional in many circumstances.
Science should be about continuous improvement, which requires ongoing skepticism.
AGW or "climate change" is one of those things I simply do not believe is "settled science", mainly because of the huge number of variables, and the models and advocate predictions have completely been falsified. It is the modern version of Piltdown Man (once "settled science", taught at university, and people even got PhD's based on it)
Call me a denier all you want. I'm not denying the "Science" part of this (CO2). I am denying the predictive hyperbole from the likes of Al Gore, who keeps making ridiculous claims, while having a huge Carbon Footprint (carbon offsets not withstanding).
And if you are going to make fun of Fox News, great, but the real person you should make fun of is the stupid chicken littles who have been proven wrong, but continue to spew their idiocy and the climate lapdogs keep licking up.
I haven't found this to be true. I've tried swiftkey and swype for weeks at a time, and I've found that they're generally slower than me tapping words out. The problem is that the worst case--that the system gets the word wrong and you need to replace the whole thing because none of the suggestions are correct--comes up surprisingly often for me. I also find the flow of tapping to be a lot more comfortable. I never stop tapping until I'm finished, while with the swiping methods, I have to pause in between words before I start swiping again.
Mileage varies, but I'm considerably faster with the built-in Apple keyboard unless I'm walking and typing with one hand. In that case, the swiping method has an obvious payoff because I can be less accurate with my movements.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
