Benj was commenting on my use of two phrases and I was responding to that. Your comment is about something else, entirely. Concerted action requires politics. Republics and democracies in some way do involve voting as part of their political machinery. Science may at times inform or advise such voters and/or political leaders, regardless of how they arrive in their various positions. Or it may not. But it's no surprise to me that concerted action remains political. Almost by definition.
Jon
According to Farrakahn's numerology, it would only take 10 people to show up.
Good idea, but wrong gas. You know they thrive on that stuff.
Bring back "Space Invaders ! Kill more Galactans. (*)
Jon Kirwan wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
except for the fact there IS NO such "consensus",nor "overwhelming weight of science result".It's just a power grab;to use it as an excuse to implement socialism,expand government control.
The big con is now in motion. Just prior to the next election, Obama and Comrades will point to (naturally) decreasing temperatures and claim his Cap and Trade regulations are responsible. All the doobees will then suck up and vote his way again. After all he didn't raise _their_ taxes. And they're too ignorant to tie those regulations to doubled electricity prices and $4 gasoline.
I'll be in orgasmic-level Schadenfreude ;-)
...Jim Thompson
Peer-review is not always what people wish it was.
I've seen some really WRONG stuff that got past peer-review.
The University of Iowa professor who asserted that water was actually entering Earth atmosphere from space faced MASSIVE ridicule from the ESTABLISHED scientific community.
It was downright hostile and the derision became quite PERSONAL as well.
The guy took a LOT of guff until water was actually SPOTTED and confirmed on entry.
Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows of England falsified an entire psychological diagnosis and created an entire INDUSTRY for himself and some others. Since it conformed to dogmatic positions it passed peer-review.
Later, when he got caught in some other and horrific lies (destroying families) people went to look into his GROUND BREAKING and historical research, only to find that instead of being enshrined in a University libarary which is customary, Meadows had SHREDDED his peer-reviewed research.
So here are two examples of how peer review gave a false negative and a false positive.
Let's not get too carried away with the true meaning of "peer reviewed".
'ey, krw :-)
By that time (taxing everything), it will be decided to "simplify" the tax laws and simply have the government snarf all assets.
/BAH
Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Witness the recent Mexico gun "statistic" Obama keeps repeating despite being informed by ATF that it's way off. The "90% of Mexico's illegal guns come from the US" false fact.
Actually,it's 17% of Mexico's crime guns come from the US;the rest are from socialist central American countries fomenting rebellion.
But,since Oblama is anti-gun,he keeps repeating the false fact to support more gun control.
It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes 'fact'." schtick.
Watch the antismokerists intensify their propaganda, as they don't like being supplanted as the National Religion.
Thanks, Rich
That's not CO2, it's methane. If you want to fart CO2, just drink a lot of beer. ;-)
Or maybe they'll ban beer and soda pop?
Cheers! Rich
It depends on which group of "peers" you pick.
Thanks, Rich
Indeed it does.
Jon
e
on
d d...
the
left
Right, it's methane - which everyone knows is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
Michael
worldwide
US
=46ar, Far worse is that there is about 10% each of false negatives and false positives from the samples that i have been able to gather. The killer is Joe six-pack would only believe in a few anomolies, not major systemic problems.
n
Rich doesn't know enough science to be able to distinguish science from religion.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required