More importantly, it isn't an attempt to get MONEY out of politics, it is an attempt to get non-establishment MEDIA money out of politics.
All this does is turn politics back over to Time Warner, Fox, Disney, etc, who own the news stations and papers, and out of the hands of the People.
"We don't want your money in politics... but would you like to buy our news station?"
All that they did here was run a statistical analysis on the same flawed, "adjusted" data that Mann used on his initial "hide the decline" fraud. Even if the math here is sound, it doesn't matter because it is all based on deeply flawed, horribly bad data.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Users are met with a message stating that OKCupid would prefer no one access their site with Mozilla software.
You know, Mozilla could easily make that happen.
America, the UN, and the EU are not going to sanction Russia. They simply aren't. They are no more sanctionable than America is.
Not only can they easily get around pretty much any sanction, the act of sanctioning them is still an Act of War under international law, which would give Putin a casus belli to invade even more countries, which he is obviously itching for.
The troops are on the field. The question is simply how well dug-in does Russia get to be in Crimea before they launch their attack.
I have my own theory. First we need to set the stage. One of two things is true, either human activity causes global warming or it does not. Either way we have two choices, either we choose to reduce carbon output or we choose not to. We are assuming that global warming would suck for us, if we assume otherwise then the point is moot. If global warming does not suck then we have nothing to argue about.
It's even more complicated than that. First, either human activity causes climate change or not. (I think virtually everyone agrees yes, as a concept.) Next, either human activity causes significant climate change or not. This one is much, much more debatable, even among climatologists. Next, either that significant change is something that the climate doesn't already compensate for as part of it's normal feedback loops or it isn't. Finally, either the change is something that is harmful for human life, or not.
If we hit "not" on any of those, then we are wasting our time with climate change carbon nonsense. That isn't to say that we shit on the ecology -- no one likes to live in filth. However, we do need to recognize that "green" is a luxury, and one that frankly most of the world can't afford. American and European poor are rich, compared to the poor in... well, any place that isn't America or Europe. The rest of the world's poor need electricity, healthy water, medicine, and transportation any way they can get it.
Frankly, at this point, to impose any sort of "carbon" standards on any part of the world is tantamount to genocide, because the economic costs associated with it contribute directly to the starvation and disease related deaths in Africa and Asia.