once the wage is in effect fewer new businesses will be created.
Just because you believe it doesn't mean that it is true. Even professional economists can't agree on such a simple statement, since the details are so complex. But whatever floats your boat Mr Dunning Kruger.
They would get them back and then punish them and then separate them.
Exactly. If that's what he deserves, then truth will out.
And I have seen an awful lot of people saying that he wasn't worth any particular effort to get back, which is pretty close to "let him rot." That's just mind-boggling to me.
I was at Minot for five years, which seemed particularly like exile after having been in England, about an hour away from London, for two years before that. I will say that it wasn't quite as bad as I expected it to be when I got my orders.
Were you at Dover? I've always heard that's kind of the East Coast's equivalent of Minot. [1/2 g]
Then-PFC, now-SGT Bergdahl may in fact have deserted his post. There are certainly credible accusations to that effect, and if so, then he should be tried and convicted for the crime. But it's a whole lot easier to investigate those charges with him here, and we don't let the Taliban mete out justice for us.
So in that sense this is the most elegant natural solution.
Haven't you heard about the consensus. (Before claiming that science is not consensus, that is a different issue, and a way to avoid the point, that the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.)
How can you tell if its a political document rather than a science. First sign is it came from a political organization. The second is that its not peer reviewed.
Oh yeah, there are problems in how the final language of the report is written, which every county pushing their special interests into the language. Don't change the fact that the scientists signed off on the document.
Try reading some of the citations in the report. See how well they match suggested claims in the report.
That's a howler, because I *have* read some of the citations of the report, and it seems very well written to me. If you a referring to some particular controversy in some paragraph (or sentence) of AR5, then you should (1) provide a citation, and (2) admit that the report is larger than one paragraph or sentence.
Yea i know several scientists that where involved with the last IPCC report and vowed never again.
I know of complaints from scientists about how the science gets watered down, and a rosey sheen is painted onto some parts of the problem. Doesn't change the central point that I was making: we can and must move to a carbon neutral economy. Quibbling over semantics won't change that at all.