LOL you credit yourself with too much importance

Who are you and why should I care what you said or did someplace else ?

Lets Hypothetically ?

https://news.google.com/newspa...

That would be like the "Hypothetically " ice free north pole by 2000 ?

Or would that be the same way the UN spoke of "Hypothetical" climate refugees

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

Real shame people don't take genocide well.

Why would I have to make excuses for something that isn't happening ?

Yeah you got trolled all right, by the guy who told you a story about an environmental disaster in Florida you were stupid enough to believe without checking.

Looking forward to next months article "we are actually already dead".

Keep pumping that dogma! You can still squeeze a few more pennies out of the rubes before even they see you for the charlatans you are.

Go ahead if you want, my mind wouldn't be changed by hundreds of innocent people being burned alive. That is on the wielder, not the tool... taking one tool away does not mean some other tool cannot be used for whatever grim task the wilder imagines.

Your desire to ban anything dangerous leads to a world where people are incapable of handling any danger. I don't need to bookmark it because your philosophy is already killing hundreds (thousands?) of naive people per day, and growing. The disaster you so grimly anticipate is here, and you are causing it. Whats sad is your complete lack of feeling responsible for the creation of incompetent adults.

Oh and BTW when do you expect a sewer system to have problems ?

Seriously, is it just that you don't want to admit how completely you have been played ?

Why don't you find me example of a dock under water in Florida from rising sea levels ?

Good luck there aren't any. But hell now you can go around creating a new category Dock Denialists.

Try again the context is quite clear.

In Japan, they found at one point that there was a possibility of it *seriously* going to hell in a hand basket.

If the wind had been really wrong, it would have put serious fallout over Tokyo; which would have been really, really, really bad. While few people would have died, the economic disruption would have been (without any hyperbole) unbelievably stupendous.

http://world.time.com/2012/02/...

You can tell me all you want that this kind of accident can never happen, but I just don't believe it. We have no reason to think that Chernobyl or Fukushima were the worse cases, nor that these kinds of failures cannot happen again worse.

None of Obama's decisions will last. There is no point in NASA committing to anything beyond 2016. After that President Cruz will shake things up at moribund NASA.

There's no need to "google "disinformation"" since you've just demonstrated it. There is nothing claiming that NSA stopped the program. You just made that up, it's a straw man you use to spread FUD.

Sadly your comment is all too typical of the quality of comments in discussions of this subject matter. But hey! At least your lying FUD is popular, whereas the truth seldom is.

How do you think that will work out in the long run, basing positions and policy stands on lies and misinformation? I'm betting not well if practiced too widely.

Did you hit your head with a hammer before you posted that ?

Really I have no idea how you could be such a lackwit without physical damage.

More paved area = more area that needs artificial drainage = needs a larger drainage system so it doesn't back up.

Really I hope that clears things up for you. Now you can go back to people telling you end of the world stories, and how you have to support them to save the planet.

That's not true. You're just doing your best to play like you really think all of this is just a misunderstanding. It's not, and you know it. I know you've already spent ten seconds and Googled for things like this, but I'll play along if it makes you feel better. Here's just one random first-on-Google example:

http://america.aljazeera.com/a...

You've speculated that her records were kept correctly (despite what she and everyone else says), and that there's no evidence she's done anything wrong. The implication then, by you, is that she did things correctly - and the ONLY way that could be, is if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required. But there wasn't. SHE SAID THERE WASN'T. So you are tap-dancing around the whole "show me proof" thing in order to avoid just plain facing what the woman involved has herself been saying. Why, I can't imagine. Are you working for her or her party?

Yeah, sure. It was someone else hacking your account when you complained that the current people looking at the matter weren't objective and a-political enough for you. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise. You're implying it's not, which means you're being hypocritical on the subject. Only the party you don't like can be political in such matters, or only the party you favor can be objective?

The politicians doing the spin, here, are the ones relying on the fact that the person they're backing has conveniently destroyed records. The politicians conducting the investigation are relying on the documents SHE cherry-picked, and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review. Asserting that they're probably lying as they talk about public records you can review, while proposing the exact opposite about a stridently partisan person who has just been caught avoiding the very rules she said her department employees must all follow, shows how objective you're (not) being.

This has been the case for a long time. Jason Baron, former director of litigation with the National Archives, explains the problem here. He said in an interview that "Clinton’s use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to emails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal emails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department’s discretion. Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions.” That's been true of federal records for decades: the agency archivists decide what's private, not the person running her official email on a server she's keeping in her home.

Who's cornered? Not me. I'm just explaining the facts to someone who seems really desperate for them to go away.

No. Pretending that market pressures don't drive companies updating their products and their pricing is ridiculous. You have to know that. So what are you trying say, by pretending that it's otherwise? My "argument" isn't wrong: companies continue to improve their products and adjust their pricing because markets require that. It's very reasonable to wonder about someone's experience and awareness of economics and business realities when they say otherwise.

Here let me simplify this for you.

Someone says we have global warming, then says sun will rise tomorrow because of global warming.

Or in this case California will suffer water shortage problems.

Both are things that happen anyway and neither can be shown to be the result of global warming.

Hope that helps you.