Let's see, the Government wants to analyze something, let's say going to the moon. Do they talk to George Lucas or a rocket scientist?

Texans might drive 1500 miles to fill up, but they wouldn't drive one kilometer.

"It shouldn't be polio versus autism," is the false dichotomy. Hers. There is no nuance in such a position.

Sorry dropped a zero should be 3000 gallons.

70 barrels is closer to 300 gallons. The author of the story says thousands of gallons early in the story, but later says about 70 barrels.

More details than this? http://www.kosagi.com/w/index....

What do you want, his sister's phone number too?

“The motherboard, battery board, and display adapter board are designs from whole cloth,” Huang told us. “Every trace on those PCBs was placed by my hand.”

Let us hope he means the third definition rather than the second from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...

2. (figuratively, used attributively or preceded by various prepositions) The fictitious material from which complete fabrications, lies with no basis in truth, are made.

3. Something made completely new, with no history, and not based on anything else.

Yeah, I and NASA lied about the contents of the report, Johnson left all the good stuff out of his speech, that's a real credible claim. You at least need to keep track of all the players in the discussion.

My other response to your previous post thoroughly disproves your allegations of revisionism. Scientific American is quite clearly guilty of an attempt at revisionism and you swallowed it. You now seem to be decidedly weak in your citations and strong on personal attacks which are juvenile, and which would, to any dispassionate observer, appear to be more applicable to you than to me.

Here is a link http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... that includes that one journalist you mentioned earlier, and a whole lot of his friends. I challenge you to find three articles in periodicals with comparable circulation to the NYT, Wash Post, Chicago Tribune, or even Science News between 1965 and 1975 which suggest global warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions into in the atmosphere. Now you can no longer say it was an isolated or fringe view from your position of smug ignorance - any such statement will now be a calculated lie. These articles all precede the notion of "nuclear winter" which was coined in 1983. You are the one who is trying to convince others that nuclear winter and these articles were mixed up when that is clearly an impossibility. So, I stand by my assessment of your veracity. Your personal attacks about my motives are both amusing and offer a somewhat disturbing view of your psyche.

You are the revisionist, and you remain a liar. Citing a secondary source is simply repeating someone else's lie, but it leaves you a liar nonetheless. Here is the speech: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/j... Scientific American says, "When a report on climate change hit the U.S. president's desk, ..." and it was not a report on climate at all - it was about pollution and it's health affects on humans. Yes, Johnson mentions carbon dioxide and not one word about its specific affect upon the environment. The particulate pollution and sulfur dioxide he mentioned were believed to cause cooling. Nowhere in the reports he was provided was there any mention of warming from carbon dioxide.

That is another lie! No matter how often you repeat them, they will remain so. Popular Science, Scientific American and many other periodicals had articles on the subject of an impending Ice age. According to NASA, the first governmental paper that suggested that warming was the likely outcome of man's pollution of the atmosphere was in 1979. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

Climatologists were warning of an impending ice age during the Johnson administration.

Depends on whether we have a republic or a democracy.

John Basil Barnhill, ca 1914. Not Thomas Jefferson.

I don't agree that coal doesn't pollute, look at the huge impact of its mining on water pollution alone, but the US choosing not to finance and thereby control that scrubbers and other pollution controls are installed will almost certainly result in hundreds of plants being built to the standards of the early to mid 1900's. It seems to me that this policy is highly counterproductive environmentally; typical of the short-sighted politicians of the last five decades.