And add in oceans and forests and grasslands with lots of plants feeding on the CO2 and have the CO2 concentration differ from one container to the other by a very small percentage
Oh wait... you weren't really talking about an experiment to replicate reality but were instead talking about an experiment to prove what exactly? That if we can somehow manage to survive in an atmosphere with CO2 concentration in the 90% range, that we won't like the climate? Personally, I don't care what the climate will be like when very few life forms will have enough oxygen available to live anyway.
To whatever extent we can steer this, we must.
A truly scientific debate wouldn't need any "steering". The way I see it, steering is no different than spinning.
people outside of broad academia try to jump in and play politics with the conduct of research
What exactly are Al Gore's scientific credentials? He has a journalism degree, childhood was basically no different than a trust-fund baby and according to Wikipedia he did poorly in science and math classes at Harvard. Except for his stance on AGW, he would be ridiculed beyond belief on Slashdot because if this resumé.
In almost all other disciplines, Slashdotters tend to prefer the experts to be experts in a field. But for climate research, experts can be anyone involved in any field at all, regardless of how little that field actually contributes to meteorology and climate otherwise.
yes... but that does not require artificially increasing the cost of said fuels with taxes aimed at reducing their use.
Rather than progressives/liberals spending money lobbying various governments to spend other people's money looking for alternatives, the progressive/liberals should spend their own money looking for alternatives. If a liberal actually believed that fossil fuels were running out he would be trying to corner the market on the alternatives so as to become wealthy beyond belief.
the same way we put George Washington's slave ownership in the context of his time.
Most progressives seem to put it into this context: "He owned slaves so anything he did or said is evil and is to be ignored.
From the article:
These are the college students who are getting degrees now and will fill payrolls in 2020.
What kind of Comp Sci or related degree takes 10+ years. I would hope that someone currently in college is on a payroll (at least trying to be) well before 2020.
From the article:
Another didn't know what an invoice was.
Of course not, the Warez 'r' Us.com generally doesn't send those out to their "customers."
They seem to be looking at the really slooooow kids, the PhD candidates (are they really a different group) and those who have never purchased anything. No wonder they are finding a general lack of usable skills.
What about an employer that is not a corporation like a sole proprietor? Is that employer not also a private citizen and would have the right to watch what someone is doing with his property?
What if the employer is a family owned business? What if the employer is a small group of citizens? What, really, difference does it make how large or small the number of owners or number of employees?
If a society believes in and fosters the concept of private property then it must respect the rights of the owners of property to control that property.
So, in order to protect the rights of the employed citizens, we must trample on the rights of the employing citizens. It seems to be a fair trade to some. An unfair trade to others. And then there is the group that cannot even understand that the trade exists. That latter group needs to rethink their conceptions of the world.
Landlord... No because I am paying him to use the apartment and the landlord does retain some right to occasionally have a look that I am not destroying his property. The landlord is not paying me to use his property and provide a service to him.
ISP... No because I am paying them to carry my traffic. They are not paying me to use their service and equipment.
Government... Money is not really the property of the government. It is something that governments produce and distribute to facilitate commerce.
Notice the reversal of responsibilities between the employer/employee relationship and your red herrings (or whatever logical fallacy you were using).
Since the summary was talking about what an employer was allowed (or not) to do, why is most of the discussion focusing on whether it is bad for the government to be doing it. Actually, I think governments should be watching government employees to make sure they are actually working. If they are not working but the work is getting done, then we can lay some of them off and save the taxpayers some money.
The government should not be monitoring everyone for everything... It should only monitor those who it is paying to do something to make sure they are doing what they are paid to do and not doing things they are not supposed to do.
Seriously...
The political spectrum really is not a linear spectrum. It is circular. Think of a compass to picture this. Libertarians are north; Progressives are west and Conservatives are east. All of the various forms of dictatorships are at south.
Viewed this way, the only difference between communism and fascism really is "from which direction did you approach?" because they both restrict freedom to equal extents. They just make up different excuses for doing it.
We used to teach "your rights end where my nose begins." Now, it seems, we teach that "as long as you shatter everyone's nose, then your rights end slightly further in."
Glad to have that cleared up.
And Charlie Rangel demonstrated very well the standards to which he wanted tax law applied to his earnings...
Problem is, what legislators want others to do and what legislators want themselves to do are most often not one and the same. So we cannot use Markey's actions (or lack thereof) to be a guide as to what he expects the rest of the world to do.
What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation.
1. Creating long, complicated laws gives themselves (lawyers) and their best friends (lawyers) job security as they endlessly argue about what those long, complicated laws really prohibit or allow.
2. Creating long, complicated laws gives them an out when they choose not to follow them, AKA the Charlie "I didn't realize I was not in compliance because that stuff is complicated" Rangel excuse.
3. Unfortunately, society seems to believe that the proper measure of whether a particular Congress has been "effective" is "by how many reams did they expand the US Code?" We should be measuring their effectivenesss based on how much they trim from the law.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro