TomServo92

I was merely clarifying the context of the wording.

George Washington said it. So what? One needs only look at the second clause of the 2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Constitution does not equate "the people" as being "the government" nor does it refer to the militia in that manner. The people are the citizenry.

At the time in which the 2nd Amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "well functioning" not "well controlled".

Bingo!

Don't be ridiculous. The point is with the models all being wrong we need to re-examine the whole theory before we proceed with spending billions on it.

Ah! I didn't know that. I set the option for shorter voice prompts but that's an even better way. Thanks!

I believe Cook was flawed in his process of determining consensus. 74% of the papers he examined were considered to be "implied endorsement" of climate change simply by the fact they were examining or studying climate change. That means they were included in his 97% even if they presented alternative theories other than human forcing. The actual number of explicit endorsements (e.g. those that clearly stated the human forcing as the cause) is 23%. Understand the problem here? First let me state that I believe in the solar activity theory LONG before this report came out. I see it as confirmation since it is now being considered, which I believe is the right direction. IPCC still gets it wrong overall though IMO. If you read the whole report, it contradicts itself due to each chapter being written by different groups. That leads me to believe there is some disagreement among IPCC members as to what is really going on in our climate. On top of that, the IPCC and the climate change alarmists went into panic spin mode when the excerpt I posted was made public. It was an admission that man might not be the sole culprit that AR4 indicated and didn't fit the narrative. Last, AR5 walks back many of the dire predictions of AR4 which leads me to believe that the "science" is in flux and a true understanding hasn't been achieved yet. Given the contradictions between AR4 and AR5 plus the internal contradictions of AR5, it don't believe there is a case for immediate action given the massive costs involved. BTW, my mom passed away in 1997 of a long-term, devastating illness. I jabbed at you, not your loved ones. Thanks for that. One last question: Why have all the climate models been wrong, some by tremendous amounts?

Go ahead and laugh your ass off. You posted material from DeSmogBlog, a PR site funded by businesses and entrepreneurs with a financial interest in "green" technologies to address climate change. Hypocritical much? The IPCC AR5 SOD report states in Chapter 11, Section 3.6.2.2 (emphasis added): In case you haven't been paying attention, I don't agree with Cook. So you like smacking shit meat.......interesting....

Has anyone seen a date for the upgrade release?

I subscribe to the theory that the sun plays a far, far more significant role in our climate than man does. What I fear is spending billions if not trillions on a fruitless attempt to control the climate. Last year, the IPCC admitted that they underestimated the sun's impact (an admission that got very little press BTW) which I believe explains why all their data models are way off with their predictions. Of course that hasn't stopped them from proceeding with their plans.

OK, after seeing the additional photos and the video, I'll walk back a little on my previous. I'm still not 100% on board but it is better looking than the first photo indicated.

The Truth About DeSmogBlog Hardly an unbiased source either.

Yes, I will. BTW, posting something from Slate undermines your accusation about my "biased" source as you're doing exactly the same thing.

That guys an idiot. I have a niece and a nephew who are both autistic. My brother, who is deeply religious, does not feel in any way that his children are some type of punishment from God.

That thread is specifically about that one politician and I did use it as a commentary on the entire gun-ban movement. I did not refer to anyone else in my post either implicitly or explicitly.

Bah, the first GT500 brought in $600,000 in 2006. The Z28 actually didn't do that well considering.

That's how my 2011 Mustang works. Actually, I just hit the voice button once and say it.

LINK Hmmm....maybe that consensus isn't as strong as we've been led to believe.

Not digging the front. Nope, not at all.

"They" are varied. It's parts of the scientific community (including the IPCC), politicians, and the media (for instance, the LA Times will publish letters that support climate change but not ones that disagree). There is an effort to filter out any dissenting opinions.

Exactly. It's no big deal to spend days trying buy insurance through an exchange but if I have to drive 25 minutes and stand in line, it MUST be racism and voter suppression! GMAFB!!!!!!

So? I've experienced the same thing getting a drivers license and voting. That is a ridiculous example.

The "to what extent" part is called settled as well. They will brook no further discussion on the matter.

I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against for anything (race, gender, sexual orientation or religion). The issue gets difficult when protections for one group tramples on the rights of another. I'm not sure how to solve it but this isn't the way IMO.

Have any of those things cause global climate change? I'm completely on-board with conservation. In fact, within the huge Fortune 500 company that employs me, my name is the one globally tied to reducing our paper usage. However, there's a huge jump from conservation to assuming we have that large of an impact on climate when there are far more powerful influences at play. The "settled science" comment comes from the GCC community who try to silence any dissent by saying no further discussion is needed since the "science is settled". Any true scientist knows that it's never settled. BTW, you used "your" wrong again.