Stonehead

Oh why the hell not. I'm gonna poop on my own thread. http://blog.talbott.ws/assets/2007/1/17/badday.mpg

The article stated that it's effective if done correctly, e.g., not allowing cheating or other ways around it. The article stated that perhaps a carbon tax was a better alternative.

Oh shit, I saw this before but didn't post it. I must be a nerd. My first impression upon seeing this demonstration was, this is evolving to something 'godlike'. Maybe that's too forward looking but definitely good for 'creator' type people, e.g., artists, graphics people

I get the feeling that's there's two types of climbers and I don't mean trad vs sport.

Seems I read a news article a couple days ago concerning the lack of confidence in the currently accepted solution to the problem: carbon emissions trading.

You could say it was an oral argument.

"Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "“a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” --from Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion but quoting Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Wait a minute. Oral sex isn't really sex is it? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I'm way out of my realm here but it's an interesting subject nevertheless so I have an opinion however offbase it might be. The feds are definitely sending a message here. Hasn't it been somewhat similar with regards to Oregon's Death with Dignity Act? I mean the feds have to act consistent with federal law when there are inconsistencies introduced by states through the initiative process?

I don't know why but this gun analogy reminds me of the analogy proposed by true believers regarding the existence of heaven and hell. It wouldn't hurt to believe in a Divine Creator because if there isn't then all's well, but if there is then you're covered. Anyway, yeah, I never disputed the global warming or the fact that there is an anthropogenic component. But perhaps, there is more to the picture than carbon emissions and that there might be some superimposed influence, for instance, solar (or cosmic rays) exerting some influence overlain by man's contribution.

Many politicians are professional liars. Not that I'm saying Gore is, but don't shrewd politicians use whatever tools they can to make the people conform to their agenda?

I wonder if changing the federal status of marijuana use to illegal except in certain medical instances would also be used as a precedent of sorts to review other drugs such as XTC in similar context? You tell me. In other words, wouldn't it open up a can of worms? If I recall there were medical uses of such drugs as LSD and MDMA to treat things such as alcoholism before these drugs were outlawed. So, she shouldn't look to the courts for relief but hold hope that Congress would look at the issue?

Da kine

Whree did Cindy66 go?

Demagogue?

Didn't the Supremes base their decision on something to do with regulating interstate commerce? What terminology did they use? Commerce Clause? In reference to the Controlled Substances Act?

Many do equate the teaching of evolution as akin to propagating atheism. Evolution as understood in this context is the belief that the universe is ruled by chance, rather than design.

MIT's inconvenient scientist--The Boston Globe

Yeah, we all know that it's because atheism (evolution) is taught in schools that crime is rampant.

Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore--The Sydney Morning Herald

COULD IT GET ANY WEIRDER? l7otFNIIPGc

http://seanbonner.com/realultimatebritney/

Shakespeare's:pagetop:

Why do his pictures always seem to show him as a cantankerous old man?

Yes, I'm wid ya on that. Relatively rapid increasing trend of carbon dioxide accumulation correlated with increase in mean global temperature. As I said at the beginning, I don’t dispute the anthropogenic component of global warming. So, I’m not debating competing mechanisms. But for contrast, the shortest periodicities predicted by MOP are cycles between 19,000 and 23,000 years. Incidentally, the earth changes induced by variations in orbital parameters have a lag time before the corresponding climate change. Interestingly, there are also lag times between carbon dioxide accumulations and climate changes. For instance, see this article ( Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations). ..."High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations;..." There’s no disputing global warming even if we’re in the icehouse phase of the Phanerozoic Supercycle or in the interglacial period following glaciations due to orbital parameters. It doesn’t matter where we are with respect to which cycle. My whole point is that global warming due to anthropogenic causes is the dominant paradigm. It’s the widely accepted, orthodox explanation of the changes occurring. As such, the solutions appear to be geared towards controlling economic activities that give rise to carbon dioxide emissions. Given there are solutions proposing technological endeavors such as seeding the oceans with iron to enhance primary productivity. But these are fantastic megaprojects. I also find it ironic that some environmentalists are touting nuclear energy as a viable clean source of energy as opposed to carbon emitting power plants. Who would have thunk, nuclear = green. What do I take issue with? It’s the whole evangelical zeal taken by some firmly convinced that there’s only one fundamental solution to this problem. It’s based on the faith of scientific certainty and its orthodoxy. It's a secular religion under the guise of an environmental movement. There is no room in their philosophy to entertain any ideas that compete with the dominant paradigm. As I understand the advancement of science, it’s the competition of ideas or rather the people who push the ideas and sometimes it’s more political than based in purely empirical basis. Anyway to hear them talk about it you'd think we're doomed. http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/features/2000-2009/2004/12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c