Because gas taxes in NY are more than 3 times higher than in NJ. http://taxfoundation.org/artic...
In his defense on the recorder, it does sound like he's simply recording a speaker phone with something, such as another cell phone. At the beginning of the recording you can hear a bit of him fumbling around to get it going.
Back in the day we used to wish they would get run over by a bus, you young whippersnappers are pretty retro.
Would you care to share it?
it is mechanical engineering, actually
And only a bachelors at that.
The 97% is based on scientific polling of actual climate scientists. It is fair to say that about 19 out of 20 people actually doing research and publishing papers in the field of climatology have concluded that the buildup of greenhouse gas caused by human activity is becoming the driving force behind global warming.
It's fair to say that 77 out of 79 have concluded it, since that's the actual number of climate scientists surveyed for that figure.
You should really read the paper and not just the press release. This line in the press release hides a dirty little secret:
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Of the over 10,000 scientists contacted and the over 3,000 that replied they narrowed down the "climatologists who are active in research" to 79 individuals. The 97% figure represents just 77 people out of those 79.
And that's amazing when you consider that the survey had just 2 questions:
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
I'm amazed that anyone would answer no to either, particularly a "climatologist active in research".
I think you missed his point. There has been much misinformation spread by activists supporting immediate action. "Spread" doesn't mean "in a peer reviewed research article" it means used as an argument in favor of certain actions or policies. This is true not only on all sides of the climate change debate, but pretty much whenever there's a political hot potato.
By limiting the meaning of "spreading misinformation" to only what you consider a true Scotsman of a scientific paper is completely missing why spreading misinformation is a problem.
And from an anecdotal point of view...
That's why we have science, because "anecdotal point of view" is completely untrustworthy.
One centralized location PER STATE. Of course, you'd actually have to read more than a paragraph of bad summary to figure that out.
What? You think that money put in the bank doesn't just go in a vault and sit there collecting dust. Do you really think that rich people invest their money in ways that provide capital in order to grease the wheels of the economy in the same way that spending money does? I don't get it, sounds too complicated so I'll just go on believing that spending is the only thing that matters.
So are you planning on at least just stopping talking about climate change?
Why do I only ever hear this asked of certain non-climate-experts? It seems there's a correlation between opinions on climate change and worthiness to discuss the topic. For example, Tim Flannery is a biologist and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer yet I never hear people ask them to stop talking about climate because of their lack of expertise.
You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
yet broad public support is needed
I believe you're begging the question there.
What are you talking about, NetWare isn't even remotely related to Unix.
They did a port to the Motorola 68000 series, but that didn't go anywhere.