idrankwhat

fixie. I wonder how much we subsidized them last year.

What's wrong, Marc, no cite? AFRAID to admit that the FOX News hackjob was the source of your quote? How about finding that primary source instead of hearsay. A source that actually has some credibility. He cited quoted it. He just didn't include the link. Here it is.

All you're doing is quoting what was stated in the hack piece. I gave you the text of the email exchange. You reply by repeating a repeated hack job of an interpretation of that email exchange. It is an illuminating tactic however as it illustrates the "big lie" tactics employed by FOX (and others). Repeat it often enough and......

They never admitted bad data. The FOX piece was a hack job. The email exchange that sparked the hacking was: USA Today reporter: ..."[is it] correct to say that NASA's data is more accurate than NCDC's since it has more sources? In the media, it would be ideal to refer to one source rather than two." Reto Ruedy from NASA replied: " No, your statement is NOT correct; to get the US means, NCDC's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate. If that were our goal, we would proceed in the same way. Actually, whenever we report on US means in our publications, we recompute all US means using only USHCN data. My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for the global means. Our method is geared to getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to assess our model results. We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results. For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best."

Hardly. You operate according to your understanding. The scientific method of observation was used to determine the shape of the earth and its position with regard to the solar system. If the GW deniers want to buck the current understanding of climate change then I say "have at it". That's what science is all about.

Most of them do, when they're allowed to.

gre balls? Is that curable? Not upset though Its funny I know what working and a threat just by listening to the Dems Thanks Between the two of you I have no fucking idea what we're talking about.

Fill in the blank: "British mandate of ____________" Here's a hint

My point is that science is a process. All of the things that I listed were derived through the scientific process and the general consensus is that things are going to behave according to our current understanding. There will be some people however who will deny the views held by the majority. And that's great, especially in matters of science where the process allows for, and encourages clarification and correction and modification of our understanding. But in the meantime, the process needs to be respected which typically means that until proven otherwise, we'll continue to operate according to the understanding held by the majority. We're not going to stop skydiving because someone says that it's really a big meat magnet or nylon repellent in the earth that makes it possible. Maybe it's a complex combination? But regardless, we're still "falling" and we should do what we can, with the tools that we have, to make it survivable. After reading that I'm beginning to wonder what was in those brownies by the coffee maker.

I think these folks chose the latter. On the other hand, these folks apparently chose to bribe the tax man So I can't help but to think there's something missing from the analysis.

I've been hanging around you people too long. I was expecting someone to jump over the fire at some point.

Tip: Science is never "settled". Otherwise it wouldn't be science. Exactly Do you jump out of planes? Do you drive a car? Do you take any medication? Do you eat any processed foods? Do you listen to your Dr's medical advice? Communicate via the internet? Watch TV? All of that is based on science that hasn't been "settled".

Tip: Science is never "settled". Otherwise it wouldn't be science.

Why 2007? Why not go back a few years earlier before 43 bloated the size of government and started a trillion dollar optional war? Oh, and while we're traveling in time maybe we could take Gore up on that whole "lock box" idea. Seems that one was pretty good. Im game! Yea, me too. Go back a year or two earlier and we could slap the pen out of Clinton's hand before he signed the Gramm Leach Bliley act and of course, do a little stock trading. Baby needs tuition money and daddy needs a new canopy!

Why 2007? Why not go back a few years earlier before 43 bloated the size of government and started a trillion dollar optional war? Oh, and while we're traveling in time maybe we could take Gore up on that whole "lock box" idea. Seems that one was pretty good.

I pronounce it "plutocraticcrybabydoubledippingcorporatewelfarerecipientwhodoesntlikegettingpushedofthegovernmenttit". I believe it refers to a term that is derived from the Latin "corpus" (body) and possibly the middle English "suclen". Less commonly known as "corpsuckler" but could refer to any parasite regardless of whether or not the relationship between the suckler and the "body" is symbiotic or destructive.

Sure. Corps scream "the sky is falling". Waxman says... "how about you back that up because it doesn't look like it's going to fall". Boehner says "hey Waxman, STFU and just give them what they want".

To which party are you referring? Ignoring the failures of all participants will do nothing but delay a solution.

And supported greatly by (a) non-muslim nation. Asking Israel to abide by their agreements or asking them to quit exacerbating the situation is not calling for their surrender.

This may be a re-post but it's too good to not share. Start about 5 minutes in where he's talking about Lehman Bros. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-16-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

I agree. However it also illustrates that the HC industry has lost sight of the purpose of health care. Nope. To the health care INDUSTRY the purpose is to make money. Billions of dollars in fact. That's easier when they don't write new policies for people who are already sick or injured. True. "Field" would have been a better term. It's when people lose sight of the goal of the enterprise then the product or service suffers. When profit takes priority over the quality of things such as health care and education then I'd argue that there's a moral compass whose needle no longer points true. That's where you'll find the "death panels".

I agree. However it also illustrates that the HC industry has lost sight of the purpose of health care.

Well that's one "sunlight" post, to be countered by a dozen name-calling posts. As usual, a thread on this topic will likely continue the emotional rhetoric death spiral.

Sunlight is the best way to handle this. The above means "shut up and quit bringing attention to the fact that we ignore our agreements and prefer to continue to thumb our nose at your requests. You've put up with it for decades. Don't change now. Oh, and please don't forget to send the check." I don't have time to pursue this today unfortunately. But I think this topic would be best served to be addressed very publicly (internationally), openly and with as much information and documentation as possible. That's the only way we'll ever come to some sort of solution.

The mother evidently didn't feel herself 'punished by a baby'. Just trying to figure it out when the "right to life" ends. Seems like it's birth.