In this particular case, I would settle with standard advertising laws being implemented on the internet.
In Canada, the things you say in advertisements must be true. Telus recently sued Rogers because they continued commercials saying they have the fastest internet service after Telus completed an infrastructure upgrade which put that claim on shaky ground. So I'm saying, this ad should only exist if I ACTUALLY WIN AN IPOD IF I KICK THE PIG!!!

That law they just passed along with the great firewall of china might just be enough to cauterize the stump.

Have you seen this TED talk? I think you'll find you agree with the speaker's opinion.

Global cooling is real. It's the main reason why the global temperature graph is hockey stick shaped instead of a more gradual increase. Then scrubbers were installed on coal and oil furnaces to remove the sulfur from the exhaust gas.
Sulfur dioxide DOES cool the earth, and that is why it is considered as a potential tool for 'climate engineering.' We can use it to control the earth's temperature if things start going out of whack. But at the significant cost of acid rain.

What agenda is that? The wealthy first world nations want an excuse to transfer their wealth to poorer nations in a socialistic scheme?
Eh. Sorry. That was a bit dumb. Sonnejwo. If you do have a plausible agenda. I would like to hear it. But maybe it just makes sense to contribute 1% of the global GDP as an insurance policy against what could potentially be a disaster.

I will give you one thing. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science. There isn't any regarding whether the world is warming or whether humans are causing some part of that warming. The debate is on how serious of a problem global warming is. Is the system dominated by positive or negative feedback? In the worst case scenario, are we looking at a world at +1C or at +6C? If the answer is the former, then there's no reason to worry about CO2 emissions at all. If it's the latter, then the future of our world looks like something out of a science fiction novel.

*double checks your math* Hun... That's funny.

Huge vats of meat do not have cloven hooves nor do they chew their cud. Alas!

"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."

I don't think there will be any trust issues here. Unless we're planning on selling it for more than meat and as a meat alternative. I think the scientist has the intention to sell it as ground meat, or in sausages. It would lower the cost. If anything, in ten years time, you'll be looking for genetically modified cows with green flesh as proof that they aren't serving you in-vitro meat instead of the real stuff.

The same thing that happens to them when you wash with antibacterial soap.

I don't know... To me, that article just says that there are a lot of e-mails going back and forth between climate scientists. Which makes sense. The hacked e-mails are between co-workers after all. It says they disagreed with each other, but that the disagreements were small enough that they could agree on a common message.
It says that one scientist was asked to beef up his conclusions to aid in making a bigger public splash. There's nothing wrong with that. A paper is like an essay. You make different points with different amounts of stress depending on what message you're trying to convey and what you can back up by reference or evidence.

What the article does NOT say is that there is any proof of people tampering with results. The article also doesn't say that anyone over-stated or exaggerated anything. Though, it sounds like Santax might have read another article that does have stronger proof? (Can you post that? I haven't read it)

I believe the climate change scientists know what they are doing. Group-think does exist, and entire groups of scientists have been shown to be wrong. But this is the exception, not the rule. I want to present another anecdote.
The surgeon general first announced that smoking had negative effects on health in 1964. It's the surgeon general's job to announce some semblance of a consensus of the opinions of all the medical researchers in the United States. How long did it take before the majority of people believed in this message? How many decades were there doctors actively trying to 'disprove' the link between smoking and lung cancer? And, we're talking about something that's easy to prove. The effects of one object on an individual organism. There's almost no wiggle-room to throw in a wrench of doubt into that picture.
It doesn't take very many people to throw mud at a consensus of ten thousand scientists.

Cool!

Windmills aren't a promising as these numbers show though. For one, you pick ideal locations for your windmills. If you were to cover Ohio with windmills, you would generate very little electricity. Another thing that should be added to projections is that windmill power output is its maximum rated output, while the average output is probably 30% of the maximum. Oh, and one last point. I believe household consumption makes up less than a half of a country's power requirements since most of the electricity is used for industry.
Still. Those numbers make me happy.

turbine (tûrbn, -bn)
n.
Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy of a moving fluid is converted to mechanical power by the impulse or reaction of the fluid with a series of buckets, paddles, or blades arrayed about the circumference of a wheel or cylinder.

:p
Sorry. I'm being a jerk. I suspect you are confusing 'turbine' for 'generator.' In this case, 'turbine' refers to the entire windmill including the blades. That means the Chinese are constructing the blades as well.

Dunno. Maybe there's too much data to transmit, so they do much of the data processing on the satellite.

Really? Without a WYSIWYG system, I'm helpless. LaTeX is nice for typesetting. But when you're racing against the professor scrawling across the blackboard, you don't want to have to compile to double check if you wrote that last line correctly.

I second mathtype. It is VERY similar to Microsoft equation editor, but the interface is much smoother. The menues are intuitive and expandable. Best of all, mousing over any symbol displays the shortcut keys in the status bar, so once you find the symbol you need, you can add it quickly. You only need the mouse if you don't already know the shortcut keys. My hands don't come off the keyboard when I use it. copy-paste works very well, and you can even save any size of hilighted section to their own menubar location and add shortcut keys to them.

I think you're mistaking medical insurance with property insurance. The question is not whether you can buy insurance for a device that you own. It's whether a medical insurance company that would pay for a medical device should be required to pay for a smart phone instead if the smart phone can be made to perform the needed task. The article uses the example of a text to speech system for someone who is mute or a picture display for someone with autism.

Right now, I could buy a $8000 special text to speech machine, and the insurance would cover the cost, or I could buy an Ipod touch and install a text to speech application for $300 but have it come out of my pocket.