Well, if you really want an answer let me clarify my point. It is not that I assert that all researchers are 100% honest and ethical at all times, but rather that there are clearly so many resources available for counter research that if real science was able to support this it would be found. Indeed the more the anti-GW side focuses and character attacks and innuendo rather than scientific research, the more hollow the their side seems to me. And frankly to me, it seems the burden of proof is on the AGW side anyway because CO2 is already known to be a greenhouse gas, so a simple back of the envelope calculation would suggest GW is a concern. Picking apart minutia of complicated climate models is not affirmative proof, all the models could be wrong yet GW could still be real, (again, note I say this only because CO2 *IS* a known greenhouse gas). The nature of the counter arguments combined with the knowledge that counter research could easily be funded pretty much blow apart the AGW credibility for me.

Well, your scenario is exactly where you need to start using your real intelligence. Take for instance the conservative claim that climate scientists are just spinning their doomsday scenarios to get those "fat" research checks or to advance some other agenda. This is where you brains are supposed to kick in when you realize that energy companies are willing and able to fund their research in a lavish style that government research simply can't and won't match. Further, your brains should be able to tell the difference between honest attempts at research vs. simple attempts to delay and undermine research. So yes, don't trust everything you are told, but use your analytical skills to understand motive and source reliability.

But watch which of these "problems" get fixed. On the photo issue I assure you the elected officials will be "outraged" at the "overreach" of "imperious" public officials. But on the bank issue, it will be "very complicated" and need "more study".

No, a model is someone being paid to model. If there is no money or compensation involved, you wouldn't be modeling.

Yes, setting up a tent for camping in a park costs more than simple day use, you need a camping permit. When we decided that people using the parks should help or mostly pay for them, guess what, people using the parks need to pay for them. The park service is trying to set rules such that the more you "use" the park, aka the more disruptions your presence causes to others and nature, the more you pay. That crazy thing about all this is the right wing can't even remember that they asked for this in the first place.

Just to be clear, the $1500 cost is for major film production, think very disruptive to enjoyment of other park users (well, unless you went hiking to watch film being made, then again, you probably will get shooed away since they paid their fee). Less disruptive minor commercial shoots cost more like $30, kind of in the same cost range as your day use pass. Hikers and general public can take all the pictures they want with the cost of the day use pass. I know it is an outrage to pay for use of a public resource, maybe we could go back to the old days were parks were free and we just paid for them with taxes?

Many people in the mid east are actually pretty proud of their history in math and put a high value in it. ISIS is in on the way out already if they try this, if not every parent, MANY parents will now see ISIS for how backwards they really are.

Look at it this way, it is not like the Cop is going to forgot about the camera on them, there will already be a deterrence. However I think there is a real danger of honest mistakes being abused, and like I said most of the abuses I know about used those.

Let's be clear, does the policeman misremembering and event change what actually happened in anyway? If not then I guess, NO it isn't relevant. Look, you are making a leap that is very normal for people to make, but still incorrect. What is being unsaid is that you are accusing either side of lying to cover up and thus the lying person must be a bad person worthy of punishment for that reason, or at least unreliable in some other way. Someone mentioned that the defendant should be given access to evidence also before making a statement if the cops should. Funny thing is that isn't a gottcha against me, I agree completely. When you look at the most egregious cases of abuse and false imprisonment, the cops playing the same kind of tricks by deliberately withholding evidence are pretty much central to all of these cases. Trying to trip up people looks great on Perry Mason, but in the real world it is subject to abuse. It is a very dangerous tool to use in our justice system, even if it has good results sometimes, it dangerously undermines peoples confidence in the systems when it goes tragically wrong.

Cops use that logic and technique to railroad innocent people all the time, it should not happen to defendants or cops either. Really, watch some of the documentaries about people "confessing" to crimes.

Why, have you never remembered an event wrong? The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video, by contrast every lawyer knows the trick of picking out one detail someone got wrong and spinning that into proof that everything they say is a lie.

LOL, first who cares about unemployment among 16-18 year olds, aren't they supposed to be in school, or 18-22 year olds who are in college. I care more about unemployment overall and wage levels. Second $15 an hour still doesn't get your far in an expensive city like Seattle, only a small number of workers benefit and I can tell you I see plenty of older faces working at fast food joints. Third, despite all that, I'd take that bet if there was a real way to enforce it. Retiring Boomers basically guarantee a labor shortage over the next few years. And the secret 4th, remember a city has to pay for services for all residents, so driving out low paying businesses can be a net benefit for a city. Sure you may reduce raw numbers of job growth, but you cultivate better paying jobs, read better tax base.

There was never a general vote of the whole population of Texas on independence, if there was it very likely would not have been above 75% because about 25% of the population was Mexican nationals vs. U.S. settlers. Also note it was a two step process, the original vote was for independence not joining the U.S. a much smaller incremental change. Had that been the vote at the start I suspect the support would have been even lower, though the net result may not have changed. Denmark is united with Sweden the same way Greece is united with Belgium under the E.U. Despite this I suspect most Greeks don't consider themselves Belgian.

My first comment on the election results were this, I said it was a shame that Russia had obviously faked the results because there probably is some real underlying support for unification with Russia, but this fake vote will undermine legitimacy long term. Maybe I was lucky, but it sure seems like I was right. If about half of those who participated voted to join with Russia, there is obviously real underlying support for unifying. I never doubted this. The problem was so many people would never vote for such a radical change. Russia could probably have managed a plurality between stay with Ukraine, independence or Russian unification. Maybe they could have even pulled of a narrow majority in a mostly honest two choice vote. But that kind of support was too obviously fake.

I think you are missing it. Of course LOTS of people in Sweden don't want to start driving on the opposite side of the street, in other words they voted for no change. The vote here was about both leaving your current country AND joining another one. Make no mistake, even if as many as 15% of your citizen want to join another country (if only 30% participated in the election it is safe to say that number is approaching 50%), that is a really big deal. Imagine if even 40% of Sweden wanted to unite with Denmark! But the reality is you will have people who wan to join Russia, those who want to become fully independent and those who want to no change, well and who knows what else. There is no way that many people would genuinely support such a huge change. Kind of like why Puerto Rico is still a territory of the U.S., you can't get enough people to agree on one plan (statehood, independence) so the status quo stands. As someone else said, voting for more autonomy in such a divided society is one thing, voting to join another country is something else.