Always fun to use that in Heretic for a challenge.
Always fun to use that in Heretic for a challenge.
The Tea Party doesn't like him now. The best way to gauge his popularity is by quizzing people on how authoritarian they are. Amusingly enough, I imagine a similar metric is being reflected in the Dem primaries.
Will they be getting Tim Taylor to perform the pre-launch introduction?
Hey, hey, just because a "How to budget and take care of yourself after your parents kick your lazy ass out" would be infinitely more useful than AP CS classes is no reason not to throw money at them.
The fact that he made the most wanted list for fraud of less than $14,000 USD is still pretty pathetic. You have to hit at least 6 figures to make the FBI's white collar most wanted list.
You have to figure that at least half of them had left their gun in their luggage before and nothing had come of it. Maybe they just assumed it was no big deal and were relying on general TSA incompetence to let the gun through again. Hell, for all we know less than 10% of the guns in carry ons were caught by the TSA. It would make sense given their bomb-detecing track record.
As for my increasing the error bar to a full degree if not more, given that observational error was barely conceived of at the turn of the century(see N-Rays) and that global warming was not even something they conceived of, the idea that the people recording the temperatures would have applied rigorous data collection methods consistently is wildly optimistic. Thus, given the random nature of any such errors, your error bars would have to be relatively large.
Modern day LiG mercury thermometers crafted to NIST specifications have an uncertainty rate of 0.2 degrees C. Which is awfully fucking close to my 0.5 degrees F isn't it? I suppose that the error bars should have been higher a hundred years ago even assuming perfect conditions? We can go with that if you want. Makes the AGW side's argument much worse of course. Had you bothered to look it up yourself you would have known this but you just had to wave your dick around.
It's a simple matter of maths once you assume that the underlying premise is correct. Given that even if we cut all human emissions activity tomorrow according to the AGW proponents' own models it would take close to a century before the warming effect would stop increasing the temperature. Not return to normal, just stop increasing. And those were the old models that didn't take into account the effects they're saying the oceans are having on postponing the surface temperature increase. I imagine with those effects it would take significantly longer. So, basically you decided to dismiss the only options that would actually do anything to make yourself feel better about the situation. Possibly because you believe that the suggestions were either not serious(As, in fact, they are predicated on the AGW theory being correct), or made to make the environmentalists monsters for even considering the first one. The reasons are irrelevant. The Cold Equations of the matter reduce our options to those three.
Also, the law of large numbers assumes accurate recording and a repeat of the experiment in question. Attempting to apply it to temperature readings with equipment that may be miscalibrated, improperly treated, wrongly recorded, whose surrounding conditions may at any point change is a helluva stretch. Not without vastly expanding the error bars anyway which was my original point.
I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.
That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.
Rigorously testing a Sched 1 drug, which no matter your opinion on the stuffs efficacy should NEVER have been put in that classification, is both expensive and time consuming. Combine that with the fact that marijuana is common as dirt and anyone can grow it and there is VERY little financial incentive to perform such tests.
Because the US doesn't have PLENTY of sources of oil that it can ramp up quite quickly to meet demand nor the purchasing power to ensure more than a 5 year supply for the Navy should fecal matter impact the rotary impeller if production needs to ramp up. Oh wait, it does and you're a fucking moron. This is ENTIRELY a political stunt for idiots like yourself to ooh and ahh at like the trained monkeys you are.
TMI was the antithesis of bad. It was a mild annoyance that was really fucking expensive. Chernobyl is what happens when the Soviet govt. purposely fucks around with its reactor as a testbed. So the only actual nuclear accident with any casualties or long lasting problems was Fukushima. Which is what happens when the diesel generators are located in the worst place possible and a fucking tidal wave hits the nuclear power plant. That's a pretty fucking good track record.
Yes, uranium reactors need massive amounts of cooling. Thorium reactors don't. Given the immense reserves of thorium on the planet(as common as lead) if the greens had been pushing that since the 70's, we could have eliminated coal completely and the majority of oil and LNG usage within the next 30 years.
Sooo, Neil deGrasse Tyson would be a prime example. Yep, it fits.
Money cannot buy love, nor even friendship.