But a few jackasses drive airplanes into some buildings and it's goodbye liberty, hello 'safety'.
All that after the CIA was repeatedly told to go to hell by Bush and his Cabinet when they tried to raise all hell about the intel they had from multiple sources that an attack using airplanes within the US targeting the WTC was imminent.
It's almost like our own Government wanted it to happen so they could use an excuse to trot out the "PATRIOT" Act and step up their War on Civil Liberties when Bush Sr's plan to suspend the Constitution for the War on Drugs didn't gain much support. But that would **never** happen and anyone that thinks so is an Alex Jones loving crackpot looney.
Their IQ is slightly above your typical McDonalds worker, only because they need to know how to put on a tie
Oh c'mon, figuring out how to use a clip doesn't take that much extra IQ
Your Honor, this person of interest may have hard drives or thumb drives, and these types of storage devices are commonly used to store CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OHHHH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!! WHY WONT YOU PROTECT THE BABY JESUS??????"
Warrant granted -- get those scumbags. And I wont cry if they die before seeing a jail cell!
- If this deviation is the result of burning fossil fuels, they are expected to run out in about 800 years - after which the temperature might crash toward the "Ice age already in progress" as the excess carbon is removed from the atomsphere by various processes, or simply be overwhelmed by the orbital mechanical function if it remains.
Does this scenario count as supporting or opposing anthropogenic global warming?
The percentages come from looking at all studies, papers, research, etc. and determining the number one one side or the
When the administrators of research funding withhold future grants from scientists who publish papers questioning some aspect of the current global warming scenario, while giving additional funding to scientists who publish papers supporting it (or claiming some global-warming tie-in to whatever phenomenon they're examining), the count becomes skewed. This is political action, not science.
This happened in the '70s with research into medical effects of the popular "recreational" drugs - before such research was effectively banned. Among the resuts were a plethora of papers where the conclusions obviously didn't match the data presented and a two-decade delay in the discovery of medical effects and development of treatments. Only NOW are we finding evidence that PTSD might be aborted by adequate opate dosages in the weeks immediately following the injury, or that compounds in marijuana may be a specific treatment for it - as they are for some forms of epilepsy and may be for some cancers, late stage parkinsons, and so on.
The same happens when the editors of a journal and their selection of reviewers systematically approve and publish only research supporting the current paradigms, to the point that scientists with contrary resuts must find, or create, other journals or distribution channels (which can then be smeared as non-authoritaive, creations of the fossil fuel industry, right-wing politicans, or conspiracy nuts - and their articles LEFT OUT OF THE COUNT). Again, this is politics, not science.
Then there's the question of the methodology of the count itself. What is counted as "support for" versus "opposition to"? What does it count as a scientific paper? Were well-established research methods used? Was it reviewed? By whom? Was it done by scientists with no established position on the issue, by scientists supporting one side, by pollsters, by an advocacy group, by politicians? (Hell, was it done at all? Truth is the first casualty of politics, and fake polls are one of the commonest murder weapons.)
For an instance: How would you interpret the study behind the Scientific American article that seems to indicate:
- Planetary temperatures have tightly tracked a function of three orbital-mechanics effects on the earth's orbit and axial orientation - up to the time of human domestication of fire.
- That occurred as the function was just starting to inflect downward into the next ice age.
- The deviation amounted to holding the temperature stable as the function slowly curved downward. (Perhaps a feedback effect - more fires needed for comfort in colder winters?)
- This essentially flat temperature held up to the industrial revolution, when the temperature began to curve upward, overcoming the gradually steepening decline of the function.
- If this deviation is the result of burning fossil fuels, they are expected to run out in about 800 years - after which the temperature might crash toward the "Ice age already in progress" as the excess carbon is removed from the atomsphere by various processes, or simply be overwhelmed by the orbita
In twenty-four hours this will go from "illegal" to "high demand professional camera service" for promotions, events, etc.
Sorry, that's already illegal (according to the FAA).
Just a few weeks ago the FAA issued an interpretation of existing rules that declared illegal any commercial use of video from a drone.