jcd11235

Watch the video. It gives you the actual dates of their own words. Look at the dates associated with the legislation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Dude, that is not Executive Order 13286. Do you even look at the references you cite? Here is Executive Order 13286. Please, read it and tell us what section(s) are relevant to your point. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I agree, it's a credible source. However, it doesn't support your claim in any way. [/crazy] Did you actually read it first? TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 40 - DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Sec. 2302. Definitions In this chapter: (1) The term "weapon of mass destruction" means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity. (2) The term "independent states of the former Soviet Union" has the meaning given that term in section 5801 of title 22. (3) The term "highly enriched uranium" means uranium enriched to 20 percent or more in the isotope U-235. (Pub. L. 104-201, div. A, title XIV, Sec. 1403, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2717.) REFERENCES IN TEXT This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title XIV of div. A of Pub. L. 104-201, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2714, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title XIV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2301 of this title and Tables. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Ooh, the irony! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

For many years, I drank soda almost exclusively. For few of those years, Mountain Dew was my preferred brand. These days, I drink mostly water, plus a couple cups of coffee each day. I'll occasionally have a soda (once every couple months or so), but they just don't taste very good anymore (except IBC root beer ). I doubt I could even finish a can of Coke or Mountain Dew unless I was dehydrated and thirsty. Coffee, on the other hand … . Interesting info regarding caffeine in different food and drink products. Another interesting [url "http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/Coffee/caffaq.html#CaffeineWithdrawal"]link Also here Interestingly, 8 fluid ounces of Ben & Jerry's coffee flavored ice cream has more caffeine than a can of Mountain Dew. Eight ounces of Ben & Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch ice cream has more caffeine than a can of Jolt Cola, Vault, or Red Bull. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Funny how the legislation gave many of the lies as reason the President was being authorized (loosely interpreted) to use force. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've heard that elsewhere, and since then have been more inclined to buy Starbucks when I'm out and want coffee. (Also, a large coffee at Starbucks is less than 1¢ per ounce more expensive than a large coffee at McDonald's (worst cup of coffee nearby) or the cheapest of about half a dozen coffee shops on campus (quality comparable to Starbucks). Still, I can brew better coffee than any of them when I'm home. Speaking of which … Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Around here, the typical student breakfast involves coffee, beer (or other alcohol), or energy drinks (Red Bull, Monster, etc.). Mountain Dew is for caffeine lightweights. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Define heal. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Unless, of course, one is partial to flavor in their beverages. Have you ever tasted a Mountain Dew? (Not that I spend six bucks on a cup of coffee, maybe $2 if I'm away from home and can't brew it myself) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes. Or, thought of in a slightly different way, the Doppler effect with light waves. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Of course, those with the most fuel will likely get the worst fuel economy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or if one is an economist evaluating the impact of climate change and different policies (including the economic impact of doing nothing). There are peer-reviewed journals in the interdisciplinary field, e.g., Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Environmental and Resource Economics, and degree programs, e.g., Harvard's Environmental Economics Program and UCSB's Economics and Environmental Science. The impact of the market is a major area of interest: "Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. Market failure means that markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. As stated by Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007) in their textbook Environmental Economics." VR/Marg Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of the science and not the related policy, though. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Okay, I think I understand. You mean in the same sense that a bullet could pass in front of your eyes and you would be unlikely to see it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Everything you see is a result of photons traveling at (actually very near, since we don't live in a vacuum) c, aka the speed of light. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If the economist's primary area of original research is now atmospheric science, climatology, etc., then he could be qualified. If his primary area of original research is still economics, then not so much. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You've presented an undefined problem. The train would not be observed because it would "appear" to have a length of zero. The light from the headlight would have a wavelength of zero. It's why the speed of light is considered a natural barrier that cannot be crossed. If the train is not actually traveling the speed of light, just very close to it, such as v=0.999…98 * c, then the light would be observed first, although its wavelength would be much too short to be perceived by the naked eye of a human. Of course, so would the light reflecting off the train. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

To be fair, there is a huge difference between acknowledging anthropogenic global warming and being "pro-GW." I'm in no way in denial about the reality of global warming, but I'm not "pro-GW". I think we need to do what we can to mitigate it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It would be as useful to post a poll regarding forum members' opinions about the existence of gravity. Smart people listen to the scientists, since the scientists are the most knowledgeable about global warming. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Read the research, the real peer reviewed research. There is a consensus among the experts, and despite what the contrarians would have us believe, it's not because research reaching other conclusions is not allowed, or that the peer review process is a buddy system. The fact is, the evidence is one sided. When scientists and laymen disagree on a topic of science, the smart money rides on the scientists being correct. I have only seen "obviously well-educated and intelligent people," a group in which I am not included, argue one way on this issue, at least among those well educated posters whose education is science related. We also have a notable absence of climatologists in the forum. Yes. No one has claimed that global warming is 100% caused by humans. However, there is a significant anthropogenic component to it. That's science, not opinion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

M&M were, themselves, refuted. IIRC, M&M were refuted by people taking MBH's data and running the same calculations, were they not? Either you don't recall correctly or you haven't been paying attention. Care to refresh your memory? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

M&M were, themselves, refuted. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're right. I only remembered the site was run by climatologists; I failed to check which ones in particular. Still, there are nine other contributors, so it is in no way a given that the analysis was written by Mann. Except the fact that there have not been any flaws in the output demonstrated. The results have been shown to be consistent under different statistical methods, by different people (i.e. they are independently reproducible), a fact you seem to keep ignoring. Making the claims you are making based on that network analysis is akin to claiming that two politicians cannot be critical of one another because they served in the same Senate. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So, a non-peer review has to be peer-reviewed to be valid? Who would do the reviewing - more of Mann's peers? I stand corrected. Wegman didn't critique the MBH paper, he critiqued a portion of the M&M paper, which was published Energy and Environment, which is not a credible peer reviewed journal. Thus, subjecting him to peer review would be more scrutiny than M&M received. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

From an analysis of Wegman's testimony: Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05's arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise. From this, Wegman concluded that more statisticians should be consulted in paleo-climate work. Actually, on this point most people would agree - both fields benefit from examining the different kinds of problems that arise in climate data than in standard statistical problems and coming up with novel solutions, and like most good ideas it has already been thought of. For instance, NCAR has run a program on statistical climatology for years and the head of that program (Doug Nychka) was directly consulted for the Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper for instance. But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction - that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let's face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone's attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right - it would make no practical difference at all. Wegman's testimony is not quite the evidence of MBH being bogus you claim it to be. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!