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) :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

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 :-D

you're not supposed to be fiddling with the touchscreen on tesla while driving...

the shipping container is just one large box like pallet.
why is it so hard for people to see that?

anyways, either are an improvement over moving sacks..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If my PM sent me a word doc via email, especially if it was sensitive, I would fire the PM for incompetence. Files should be stored on servers where proper security can be enabled and monitored. Once a doc gets attached to email, you have lost all control over it.

Document control systems need to be in place, and email is not a document control system.

One picture of a sleeping baby is different from 10,000 pictures of said baby sleeping. One is memorial, the other is obsession.

There are two kinds of Repbulicans, NeoCons and Libertarians. Neocons are Simply Democrat Lite banded. These are the people who support Amnesty along with the Democrats, Support Government intervention into markets (too big to fail), and so on. The others are the Libertarian, limited government types that are a much smaller crowd, but tend to be louder and better at getting more attention.

The war in the Republican party is over who has more influence at a given time. Right now, you're seeing a large number of Libertarian types coming into the new congress, which is why Boehner (a neocon) quickly passed a budget that gave the (D) just about everything they wanted. A huge number of republicans are pissed off, and seriously thinking about building a credible 3rd party, something you'll never see democrats do.