Sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme -- this could be illegal.

Thanks for the link! It's very informative with this definition: "A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong."

Oh, wait! Use of "could" makes the entire statement unfalsifiable and therefor [sic] non-scientific. D'oh!

I think the "could" in the headline indicates a situation that is potentially avoidable (whether through intervention or through chance). It could be falsified under this scenario: That future circumstances match those of the model making the prediction, but the prediction fails to materialize.

It gives them less need to do any bribing. They just go out and do what they want with no resistance.

There is a very interesting read, which is a review of two books, one a biography and the other an autobiography. The article appeared in New Republic sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. It can be found here.

The story is long and complicated. Excerpt: "Whatever his reasons for turning against communism, he remained left of center long after he did so. As late as 1952, by which date he had been publicly denouncing Communists for six years, the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee declined to endorse him for an open House seat because they thought he was too liberal. It's tantalizing to speculate on what might have been had the Democrats of Los Angeles not made this bonehead decision. Would Representative Reagan have become Senator Reagan? Might he have ended up as JFK's running mate? Would he have drifted to the right and become a marginal crank like Sam Yorty? Or would he have stayed left and won the White House four or eight years earlier than he did? And — most delicious thought of all — would the ultimate sneer-word of today's conservatives be not McGovernism or Carterism, but Reaganism?"

Yes, the deniers are raising their voices loudly as if they are genuinely alarmed (and they are, since action on climate change would threaten their oil profits). The realists just go on with the science.

Who are you addressing?

60 Megabits of what?

"Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data."

I'm trying to figure out if you have a reading comprehension problem (since you apparently did read at least a portion of the article), or simply don't know what "arbitrary" means.

We may have a mixed future, where we get our AC from the Edison company, and our DC from Tesla.

Oh, I'm sure *that* will be impartial. (rolls eyes}

Bye Felicia

And we are doing it by outsourcing a lot of our production overseas. Yay us!

USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

Haha, I had seen the second site you linked, but not the first one. It's just as funny!!!

"Southern" = the part closer to the south pole

Would not posting a submission whose only source is a biased opinion piece (more than) hint at a bias?