For Democrats that is.

If you began using the net in the mid 80s and are younger than 60 you've spent half your life on the net and have seen it all and sure as fuck know more than some kid coming out of school with extensive Microsoft experience.

Would Stallman be considered a digital native?

Is this that story from last week where the GOP is trying to pass a bill that forces the EPA to be open and transparent with the data they use to make public policy?

We talked about already. It did not go well for advocates of secrecy.

Take II ?

Good point. I missed that. Thanks.

And wouldn't it be nice to end that secrecy?

If there is no secret data why are they fighting to keep it secret?

A good way to route around calls for openness and transparency to to be open and transparent, not to claim there's no secrets.

But thank you for the pointers to marketing information, I've read them all thanks.

I've read all of it. You haven't seen the above before have you? Admit it.

"So, basically a bunch of luddites on the payroll of major corporations are trying to ensure those corporations have access to whatever private data they need to discredit the science?"

That's right. So does the smartest man in the world. And the second smartest man in the world and so on.

If it's correct, it gains traction.

If it's wrong, we'll know.

This is how science works. It is the very definition of it.

Secret rules is how churches work not science.

Also, math is either right or wrong. Your amusing screed, which amounts to "guys smarter than me know you're wrong but I can't explain how" did not falsify anything I said. Yo literally do not understand what you're talking about.

It does not surprise me people you work with know more than you. The model is still wrong and that's still why it can't be used to craft public policy.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

Care to put money on this?

I've read all that. It's what you haven't read is the problem.

When your opponent starts off with an adhiminem you know they have no data.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

As for the great lakes, they froze early, thawed late and had 100 year record levels of ice; some froze completely which is nearly unprecedented and niagara falls froze twice in 2 years.

All signs of a warming world no doubt.

But please drag out the weasel words and explain this. Extra points or quoting "Skeptical science".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Look how much it's grown:

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

It did melt, because it was warmer. It grew back because it was colder, not still warming.

NOAA graph showing cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

And another:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

Who expects it to grow back all thick? Give it time, now that it's reflecting back sunlight it'll happen.

As this point "Skeptical science" has the credibility of "Natural News".

Not one prediction by the IPCC ever came true.

"Oct. 7, 2014 Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum"
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...

That's the problem with you alarmists, you're familiar with the headlines but have never seen the actual data. Stop reading opinions on blogs.

"What matters is volume, not surface area."

Newsflash: if it's white it reflect back sunlight regardless of the thickness.

It all grew back in a "warming world" with rising Co2 in five years and isn't a mile thick. No shit. It'll thicken, don't you worry about it.

Gore said it would be gone by now. The opposite happened.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...