|
|
No, the ORIGINAL Kyoto Treaty was based on the falsified and erroneous information from the U.E.A.
Piltdown Man was used to prove Evolution.
Made up facts were used to prove AGW (for Kyoto).
See my point. Piltdown man did not prove Evolution because it was fraud, in the same way that UEA fraud didn't prove AGW.
My guess, is she ignored the warning signs or had enough self esteem issues. These things typically just "happen" in a vacuum.
This is (one of the reasons) why I tell my daughters that they should be very careful when dating. Because if you sleep with a stalker, they will stalk you.
Oh, I wish I had mod point!
I never said I didn't believe in or believed in AGW. What I said was that the Kyoto Accord was based on the same kind of science and Piltdown man. I suggest you google it. Kyoto was based on the flawed and flat out fabricated information coming out of the U.E.A. Doesn't mean U.E.A was wrong, it also doesn't mean they are right.
And I'm opposed to the Kyoto Treaty based on other reasons. It excuses or doesn't affect the people that are actually causing the most harm to the environment, namely many third world countries and China. It is a tax on Western Countries. Further, a country does NOT need to sign the Kyoto Accord to start reducing Greenhouse Gasses or do any of the other things in Kyoto Accord. Lastly, without alternative energy sources that rival high energy dense fuels, like coal, natural gas, or Oil, Kyoto will require dramatic changes our societies are not ready for. (I suggest looking into Thorium Nuclear technology).
The only thing Kyoto does is make the USA (and any other signatory) answerable to a bunch of petty bureaucrats from places I don't trust.
Is that anti Science enough for you?
As for HuffPo or John Stewart, just taking a jab at the typical Lib that gets their info from these "reliable sources"
Daily Mail and Breitbart are more trustworthy than MSNBC or CNN these days, simply because they post news and analysis nobody else will. Sorry, the MSM is in the tank for the administration doesn't help your case. You may not like the political bent, but facts are facts, and if you're not getting all of them, you're being lied to.
Something "based on science" isn't Science. It is something "based on science". I can be against Kyoto accord (policy) for reasons other than the "science" behind it (policy). This is something liberals cannot fathom.
Kyoto Accord has about the same amount of science behind it as does the Piltdown Man did. Remember, Piltdown man was accepted as "science" for years and many PhD in sciences were awarded to people who did their Thesis on it. Just because Science claims something doesn't mean it is true.
Funny, the current Administration sure is ignorant about a great number of important topics. The amount of "I know nothing" coming out of DC the last two weeks rivals Sgt. Schultz
says the AC who reads HuffPo and gets news from John Stewart.
Not all tyranny comes from a single despotic ruler. Tyranny is when the people fear their government. I fear my government more than I fear my neighbor. THAT is tyranny. Perhaps not rising to the level of a single all powerful tyrant (North Korea), but tyranny none the less.
In case you don't read the related WIKIPEDIA article, the rates mentioned are per capita (100,000) The difference is
So, how does one like yourself figure that suicide rates are comparable between countries that have no access to guns and those that do? Like USA vs UK?
The only conclusion is that people comitting suicide will commit suicide using other means, and guns are only a tool. Would you be willing to include suicide by pill in an effort to ban medicine, by counting those deaths in analysis of effective medicine?
As for my "lie" about suicide statistics just look here
34 United States[25] (more info) 19.5 5.5 12.0 2009
38 United Kingdom (more info) 23 11.8 2011
The UK, with strict gun control laws has a statistical blip difference in suicide rates(12.0 vs 11.8). Claiming "easy access to guns" attributes to increased suicide rates is in fact flawed.
For someone that cries "lie", I'm not sure you understand what that is. Your cry of "lie" is itself a "lie" of ignorance. There is no appreciable difference to having access to guns and the rates of suicide. People bent on killing themselves will kill themselves, at the same rate, regardless of access to guns. Basically you are making the argument, not based on facts, but your feelings of what the facts should be.
"*The higher the bar to entry, the fewer suicide, and that bar to entry doesn't have to be very high to cut suicide rates in half." -- not actually true. More of an opinion stated as fact, which is not actually borne out in the data on suicide rates among countries with gun control vs lack of gun control. Facts are facts, and cannot be opinionated away because they are inconvenient.
Nice try though.
I live in the city, and assume disasters happen to people who don't live here because they're dirty, disgusting, bad people. Yes we have storms, typhoons they're called, the bad ones batter the city with winds that would barely make the news in more relevant nations. It's not an issue. It stops the trains from running due to trees falling on the tracks, but that's all I know or care about because who cares what happens to the roads and houses of the great unwashed who don't live in cities. For completeness, I'll point out the obvious fact that the underground trains continue service even under those weather conditions-- too bad that's of no help to the farmers who lost their crops or the townspeople whose houses were destroyed.
FTFY.
No wonder why Venezuela disarmed its citizens. That country is enjoying the lowest gun crime and suicide rate in its history, so all this NRA talk about "only outlaws have gun" is BS.
Your statement is the BS here. A total lie, in fact.
Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!