OCinBuffalo

What are your standards for and definition of a US Senator who: 1. is not a tool of the military industrial complex 2. serves on the various committees of the Senate which are responsible for the oversight and budget of the US military? For example, if a Senator who serves on the Armed Services Comittee says he supports using the forces he has a fiduciary responsibility to oversee, to resolve issue X, is he a tool of the military industrial complex, by default, by design, or is there actually some quantifiable way to demonstrate this? Or, is your standard that no one on that committee can ever support using those forces, without automatically being a tool of the military industrial complex? If not, what is your standard? I realize it's issue by issue. But don't bother trying that. You've already chosen the arbitrary approach, and have seen fit to lump McCain's entire time on the committee into a boolean value == complete tool of the military industrial complex. I'm therefore going to apply the same approach: what is your standard, given 1 and 2 above, for a senator that proves they are NOT a complete tool of the military industrial complex? Or, is there such a thing as a half-tool of the military industrial complex? 1/4? 1/8? And again, what does a 0% tool look like?

Yeah, Obama destroyed their bench. These 1-2 term Ds have a right to be pissed. They got used as far-left agenda ass covers, and then were disposed of. But, Rahm Emmanuel is a contender for "Most Pissed Off Man in America". Imagine if all the work you did, from 2005-2009...was mostly destroyed by 2010, and then utterly destroyed by 2014. On purpose, and for very little in return. What did they get? A health care law that is now a 30 year political liability? It's not that amazing. Right now polls are 95% name recognition. That's why there's no real big differences between any of the Rs vs. Clinton. The important take away here is that Hillary almost never polls above 50, against anybody, just like in 2008. (When she does, it's CNN, after somebody with Poly Sci clout writes that she's below 50). Wait.... I swear I didn't look at RCP before I typed the CNN thing: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Yeah. Like I said. Scroll down the page, and the only time(except CNN), when she gets above 50 is against Trump. Hilarious. The conventional point is: "Hillary, based on her name recognition, should be running in the high 50s. She's not, and that's a problem for her". How nice of CNN to proivde the only polls that detract from that point. Clinton is only polling at 52-33 against Sanders....which is how you know the CNN polls are garbage. Look at the last round of CNN polls on page 2 of the link: all below 50. Are we supposed to believe in a 10 pt. gain for Hillary in CNN's polls from June 2 to July 1? What exactly happened in the last 30 days to create that gain? Answer: nothing. Clinton is losing support from both parties, and CNN is pissing themselves. The 10 point bump smells like potty training. Hey, that worked for Obama. What's changed? That's the thing: I have no idea what "new" thing Hillary is gonna point to. All she has done thus far is talk about her support of 60-80 year old, failed or failing ideas(but we are supposed to call that "progressive", right progressives? ), in a vain attempt to establish her liberal credibility. I don't hear any new ideas. It's not working. The liberals don't believe her, and the rest of us don't hear anything new, or dare I say: worthwhile. There's a documentary about Bill Clinton's election called "The War Room". In that link, here's literally the same old same old from James Carville, but more importantly: "[George Bush] reeks of yesterday. There's a stench of yesterday. He is so yesterday, if I think of yesterday; if I think of an old calendar I think of George Bush's face on it". I think using that against Hillary would be a great campaign ad. Hey, it's on youtube. Just dub in Obama/Hillary and you have it.

The real NY Times headline, from 2011, should have been: "Pharmaceutical companies jack up prices 200-2000%(on the front page)... in return for going along with Obamacare(on page 36A)". Hence...the headline you posted. My truthful headline is one cause of your post's effect. I told the "per capita spending" jackass, 30 pages ago: the rates per utility of service WILL eventually reach a point where illegal side payments/deals between providers and patients become commonplace. Rationing ALWAYS causes a black market. Jacking up prices beyond demand, by law, not market(like every greedy monarch in history?) ALWAYS causes a black market. What do you get when you do both, at the same time? A pervasive black market, in every state. Markets are markets, regardless of what color they are, and will always exist(see: War on Drugs). If somebody provides you with solid, reasonably priced health service vs. government gouging you for half-ass service? Are you really going to stay on Obamacare? Especially when half the people on your block are using the black market? No. And we know this how? Easy: Prohibition. See? Obamacare, only by working backwards of its intented design, will eventually break the hold of both insurance and government on health care, permanently. It's practically inevitable. Providers who price themselves out of the market via strict adherence to Obamacare, and/or their own idiotic quest to end 5% of their patients getting free ER care...in return 30% of their patients "paying" Medicaid reimbursement...will be shunned and fold. They will fold. This is math, not opinion. Black market/end around Obamacare providers will succeed. The market, not government, will dictate. This is why I love the SCOTUS decisions and all of it: the longer this abortion is allowed to continue unreformed, the more the concept of single payer/massively regulated insurance/government control is destroyed, the easier it will be for the black market to become pervasive, thus ending in the complete removal of both insurance and government from health care.

I will ask you again: WHY does an 18-year "hiatus" in global warming need an explanation if it doesn't exist? WHY are half the theory's supporters denying the hiatus, and the other half explaining it, at the same time? WHY is this guy, who created the AGW "story" 26 years ago, when he was the Chief Science Editor at The Economist, now calling himself a "lukewarmer"? Yeah, these questions are based on "ignorance"? No. These questions are based 100% on the words of the AGW cultists. I didn't say any of this. We aren't comparing and contrasting different POVs here. I am literally using ONLY the words of the AGW cultists. They can't get their story straight. I am merely pointing out the obvious logical flaws in what AGW supporters, and only AGW supporters, are saying. New question: Why all the dissembling, disagreement, and backpedaling, amongst AGW supporters, not amongst skeptics, on something that ALL of them have sworn was "settled" 10 years ago? I'm going to repost this every damn week until somebody answers theses questions. And, I'm counting the weeks going forward. Calling us ignorant? Answer the damn questions and prove it, clowns.

As I said: I have more than enough to prove the 1985 Bears are the best, I just didn't post it. The reason they are better than the 2000 Ravens, who were very good(the other all-time candidate is the 1976 Steelers, btw), is the schedule. The Ravens played mostly weak teams, while the Bears played 5 eventual playoff teams(in an era where 5, not 6, teams made the playoffs per conference, if now, they would have beaten a 6th in the Redskins), including the Monata 49ers, the Marino Dolphins, and beat Dallas 44-0 in their own stadium, which remains their all time worst beating. Yes, the Bears lost to Miami, but, they said they were too cocky going in, that losing that game got them re-focused, and is the biggest reason they won the SB. If you look at total offense on the season, it's not even close: the Ravens played lesser teams. The reason the Steelers aren't the best? Their O had 5 HOFers. The Bears had Walter Payton...with McMahon and Willie Gualt? Please. EDIT: Fun fact. The 1985 Bears D outscored the opposing offense, 3 games in a row. The Bears success was about the ENTIRE TEAM on D. The 46 required Fencik and Marshall, at minimum, to blitz, while it left the CBs in single coverage islands, every single play. Everybody on that team was going after the QB, except the CBs and 1 S. So, yeah, it's a team effort. Teams knew it was coming, and would try to shift protection, only to have Singletary shift the defense. If they shifted again, he would shift again. You can only do that with highly intelligent, and athletic D lineman, LBs, and SS...and also shut-down CBs. You need an entire team, working together. The reason why the 1985 Bears are the best is that the whole was greater, despite the HOF value of many of the the parts, than the sum. Which...is why I even dared to bring up the 1985 Bears as a potential comparison in the first place. We certainly have the pieces. Whether we have the team, which depends on coaching, attitude, and hustle, remains to be seen. No. I had faith in my fellow TSW posters, and figured that they would figure some ways to do the statistical adjustments, as they did. I certainly could have done it myself, but, that would be a very long OP, and, it takes the fun out of it for everybody else. It's June. I'm trying to conduct an interesting thread, rather than yet another "list the best/worst X in the NFL" article. Would you rather have me conduct a draft of TV shows instead? Sure it is, for 3 reasons: 1. As already shown above, adjustments can be made to the stats, that, if we can all get behind their method, serve as useful indicators 2. As was already said, the 1986 Bears D was statistically better, but...nobody cares. 3. Everybody knows about the rules changes, even since 2000(and the Ravens), and, everybody knows about FA now. However, if you ask anybody with reasonable football knowledge, and certainly, if you ask anybody in the media: the 1985 Bears are still the best. If we want to take their place as "the best" in the consciousness of NFL fans, we have to beat them/make a sound statistical, as well as games won, case.

For the Sabres? I mean, can we put aside all partisan delta bravo crap and get behind that? Or, does this bunch too many panties? Come on, if nothing else, it's extensible: As long as O'Reilly is around, you can include every other player on the team as being part of "The Factor". And, hey assclown Buffalo/National media? This is my original thought. Perhaps you are too chicken to use this as a headline, but, when/if you ever dare to use it, I'll be damned if you do it without acknowledgement. Jeremy White already stole my preseason posts format with his All 22 posts. Bastard didn't even change the damn font. But, I was cool with that...because I'm lazy, and as long as it gets done, I don't have to do it. However, a tag line is eternal. The only issue I have is using something from a Strong Island dude for one of our things. I would gladly never speak of it again, if it becomes clear that using anything that emanates from Long Island is a no go.

Yes, when we combine aggressive emotion with aggressive ignorance, ensure that the designers of the system lack all system design skills, and base the design on political requirements instead of business requirements, we get the ACA. My post is shorter than yours. Just sayin'

We have to be better than these guys. I don't need to link anything, youtube is full of 1985 Bears highlights. Google is your friend. I have more than enough to prove the 1985 Bears are the best, so don't bother, and, that's not what this thread is about. But.... IF we are going to use the 1985 Bears D as a measuring tool, we have to do it with a few caveats and nuances. First, the rules have changed. You can see that in the every youtube you watch, as the Bears are headshotting everybody on the field, especially the QB(Joe Ferguson playing for Lions...looks dead). It's not just headshots, another reason the Bears are the best is: they created the need for rule changes to help the O, all over the field, especially in the secondary. The Bears got away with what would be instant penalties now, yes, but, they also are the reason those penalties were created. There are lots of things to consider, but, this thread is about swinging for the fences, and fun. So, let's look at the stats we need to be in the ballpark of the 1985 Bears: Record: 15-1 Points Allowed: 198 Yds/G: 258.4 Sacks: 64 INTs: 34 Yds/G Opp. Rushing: 82.4 Last year for us: Record: 9-7 Points Allowed: 289(#1 = SEA, 254) Yds/G: 312.2(#1 = SEA, 267.1) Sacks: 54(#1) INTs: 19(#1 = SF, 23) Yds/G Opp. Rushing: 106.4 (#1 = DET, 69.3) As you can see, we have a ways to go(and so does SEA) to even be in range of the 1985 Bears stats. However, given the rule changes, it might make sense for us to look at adopting some sort of adjustments. In closing, there is one stat from last year that = the 1985 Bears! 16 Passing TDs allowed on the season. As I have said many, many times, Defense always starts at the back, not the front.

First why does the thread title say "stats" and not "stat"? The only stat I see here is points allowed. A better title: "Arguments I don't like, subjectively disproved by a single stat...that I selected". FireChan, on 12 Jun 2015 - 08:55 AM, said: Don't you mean EJ? Since, you know, EJ and Geno are "essentially the same QB" and all. I mean, some love to pick on EJ over the Texans game...but WTF...compare that to Geno vs. us? IF we are doing "one game means something" then saying EJ == Geno is beyond stupid. However, I want to see 3 picks like that turned into 21, not 17, 14 or friggin 6, 90% of the time. Any game like that should be over, immediately. No leaving the Jets to hang around and make things interesting in the 3rd quarter. QB Bills, on 12 Jun 2015 - 10:22 AM, said: Yep. This is my default expectation. I see no real reason why we can't be(statistically) on par with at least late 70s Steelers #s, early 2000s Ravens, or late 80s Giants. I do not know if we can reach 1976 Steelers or 1985 Bears level...which is greatest of all time territory. (And for the old timers, the Purple People Eaters, Packers, Rams, Dolphins, Chiefs, and whatever else was before my time. I only know about the Steel Curtain because I lived in Pittsburgh.) IMHO, The last time the Bills had a defense of this caliber was 1988(lost AFC Conference game). I did see the 1985 Bears, and if we can get to even 80% of their level(statistically), we should be a serious playoff contender. Why do I keep saying "statistically"? Us getting to 80% of the 1985 Bears is essentially getting to 100% status, because of the sheer number of "help the offense" rules changes since 1985. The things Gary Fencick and Dan Hampton, used to do to people would be 15 yard penalties and massive fines today. Hampton used to suplex QBs. What kind of suspension and fine does Godell hand out for play like that today?

Both of you guys are right. What it comes down, just like it always does in sports: 1. Attitude 2. Hustle Attitude we've all covered. We know what kind of attitude is required, by all players on O for this to work. Hustle in this case means: when it's your turn to get the ball, make damn sure you make the play. Example: If O'Leary is thrown at, and Harvin(just picking on him, could be Hogan) is open, O'Leary better make that play. If he does, he builds trust in himself, and trust for the entire team/system/game plan. But, perhaps more importantly, he also mollifies Harvin: He was open, but it wasn't a waste. Harvin's much more likely to buy in if the rest of the guys on O show that they can do the job. Maybe even challenge him to make sure each play he gets the ball isn't a waste. All of this can be accomplished by hustle. Every guy needs to bust their ass, and every other guy needs to get on a guy when he doesn't. But, in order for that to work, we are back to attitude. This is why attitude and hustle will always be integrated, and integral for a winning team.

This, right here, is how Santa Claus ends up getting hit with snowballs in Philly. Philly is the anti-Buffalo, or at least the anti-TSW. They go out of their way to know NOTHING about the teams/players/sport, and then they go out of their way to talk schit to everyone, whether they want to listen or not. They are the ultimate example of scoreboard and box score watchers. If the scoreboard says win, then they were right, because everything Philly is awesome, and everybody else sucks. If it says lose, then they were right, and everybody needs to be fired/run out of town. When they lose, there are all sorts of tantrums thrown/fights started all over the city. Monday after a loss sucks if you are a traveler, which is why I started leaving on Sunday. This is largely because some idiots in their media, in trying to capitalize on the "Philly is awesome and everybody else sucks" side of the mentality, run with it, and whip up expectations(for clicks) when it is easy to do: offseason. Then when things inevitably don't pan out...somebody, anybody(besides their own idiot selves) needs to pay. QED: Santa Claus gets a snowball.

Yes, since the mean for thread negativity is 3.5, this thread is below(or above, depending on perspective) tolerance. ---------------------- The one serious negative I have is: perhaps too many playmakers? Regardless of whether we win or lose, getting the ball to all these guys is going to be a challenge. If we are winning, guys will want their shot to make a play and be part of it. If we are losing, guys will argue that getting them the ball more will turn things around. All of this assumes a positive, that can be looked at as a negative: nobody gets hurt. Aside from Woods, Goodwin, Hogan, and of course Fred, these guys are all relatively new, or actually new Bills. IF Fred goes, then so does a lot of continuity, because Woods is only a 3rd year player. Harvin and Shady are not going to sit by and say nothing if they aren't getting touches. I am aware that this entire issue could be flipped instantly to the positive thread, and perhaps even be the most positive concept there, if players and coaches work at this. But, I'm saying that starting from today, we are at 0 on this, and it's a lot easier to move backward than forward.

The better question: why is this Pope reinforcing the same old, Argentinian, Nazi sympathizer stereotype? Isn't he essentially asking: "Why didn't the Americans save the German Nazis from themselves/being themselves?" :rolleyes" This looks in every way like a lame attempt to nerf the Nazis responsibility from 100%, to 80%, and laying 20% of the blame on us for "not stopping them". F You Francis. My grandfather flew 64 missions against the Nazis, which was doing 2X+ what was required(you could quit after 30). And 43 of those missions were against their heavily defended oil fields in Romania. Therefore, in total, he did 350% more than you did...to stop the Nazis, and practically all his friends were killed. They did more than enough to stop the Nazis. Blow it out your ass. dev/null is right: in both Japan and Germany, we knew what was happening(in Japan they were setting our POWs on fire). We did the things we knew would keep the most people alive. It's an insult to both the men flying the missions, the intelligence people, and the top decision-makers, to suggest/assert that somehow they could/should have done more than they did. It's either a knowing insult, or ignorant babble. Take your pick. I'll never understand why Argentinians routinely come out with crap like this, and then cry when we point out how many Nazis escaped to their country, and tell us we're the ones with a problem. Eichmann wasn't living in the US. Perhaps Argentina should STFU about WW2, as a rule?

No. He stated, as I've already shown, the exact opposite of facts. Sweden. 77 dead. Massively violent bomber/shooter....in a country that bans all guns. A socialist utopia. The very place Obama wants us to be. Obama didn't talk about your study, he said WTF he said, and you are an unmitigated moron for trying to pretend that some study from 2013 == Obama's. F'ing. Quote.

Right, now way she's a product of her...chosen...environment, the assclowning of our culture, or anything else that reeks of "social justice". Nah. She's just a nut. And, you're saying this with an avatar of Sarah Palin? Self-unaware much?

OMG. No, I'm not going to read the article because: Isn't this supposed to be the "smart" president? Didn't we have a looney toon kill 50+ people in Sweden...where there are no guns...and where socialism runs free....and only get 21 years in prison for it? Yes, in 2011, during this fool's first term in office! 77 people dead in far and away worse incident of "mass violence" than we've had since 9/11, with a nothing sentence? Worse, he could have mentioned that it was a right wing extremist that did the killing. The man is a moron. He's nowhere near as smart or as thoughtful as has been claimed, and he proves it on a daily basis. Why should he, when, as we see above, his favorite assclown, his own shining example of intellect, can't even remember things that happened, in his own beloved Eurotopia, during his own time in office? Liberals have never once demonstrated their intellectual superiority in my lifetime. Not once. The dumbest people I have ever encountered are all on the left. Even the Bible Thumpers have been intellectually capable. Meanwhile the smartest people I meet tend to be either independents or Libertarians. The entire notion that liberals know better, about anything, has been belied by: 1. Obamacare 2. Iraq 3. Budget deficit 4. Imminent, ignored, entitlement system failure 5. Solyndra 6. Cash for Clunkers(oldie but goodie) 7. Global Warming Chicken Stupid 8. Dan Rather 9. Duke Lacrosse Case, and refusing to apologize to this day/Rolling Stone Fake Rape(same, same) 10. Dodd Frank I can go on, but seriously, how the F can any leftist lay claim to any sort of intellectual disparity/superiority....when we have these mind boggling acts of stupidity, put upon us by leftists who claimed the same thing? Sorry, D-bags, but you don't get to talk about being smart when you've got 1-10 on your record, and there's another 10-20 that I haven't mentioned.

I've been in more than my share of fights, almost always for good reason, so I can make a "simple" list for you of instances where walking away can't work. Not won't, can't: 1. For whatever reason, right, wrong, neutral, the bell has rung, and there isn't time to walk away now. You just walked into a mess. Somehow...you're in it, and now, it's best that you win it. You're not a sociopath, so you won't keep beating somebody who is down(ahem, unlike MMA, I note). Can you guarantee that about the opposition? No. Therefore, winning/ending the fight is the safest for all involved(A Ranger lock or an eagle claw serve well here, and you will never see these in MMA, because they end fights immediately and without punishment). Also, most people don't fight a lot. They have no idea where the "fight" line is. They don't know it when they've crossed it, or that they should have walked away 5 minutes ago. Thus, while it's good that most people don't fight a lot, it's also bad: their ignorance is a catalyst for many fights. Regardless of how, once it's on, walking away can get you hurt or even killed. If you're not a fighter, the best thing to do is get your arms up, don't go down no matter what, wait it out/tire the opposition out, and hope somebody arrives with a plan. 2. The oppostion has been looking for a fight all night. It's rare for most people to spot this. They can't walk away from what they don't see. So, #1 takes over. If you can spot it(because you're a fighter), walking away merely dumps this bad actor onto the next unsuspecting person(who isn't). Tell somebody? What are you supposed to say to the cops/bouncer, exactly? That you can predict the future? Whatever the case, everything you might do to avoid #2 person is exceedingly difficult to execute once they have started coming at you. Or, you can stand your ground, give the idiot what they want...and a whole lot more of what they don't. Or perhaps, do, as there are sick kids out there who want to get beat/prove how tough they are. Thus, you either don't know to walk away, or you do, and you shouldn't walk away, because you know what the bad actor is up to, and you can stop it before it starts. 3. The opposition have been rejected by 1(or 5) people, and now it's #2 time. You arrived a short time ago, didn't see any of that, and are now hitting on the person(s) who did the rejecting...and winning. You have no idea what's coming, and all of a sudden it's #1 and #2 combined. Walking away only leaves the rejector(s) hanging out to dry, for the bad actor(s) to go after. Now that you've walked away, they feel empowered. Walking away now won't make you "smart" or "mature" or "moral". It makes you a coward. You might be able to walk away with the rejector, before #3 person(s) gets their nerve up, but rejector has to clue you in. And, be warned: the rejector can be a sick person...who wants to see you fight for them(often known as "From South Philly"). 4. Or, even worse, the rejector can be the supposed significant other of the bad actor...who as it turns out, isn't so bad after all . What would you do if somebody started hitting on your partner, and your partner started encouraging them, or you think they are? Are you going to walk away? Most wouldn't. Most would fight for what is theirs. Then we add false/messy perceptions all around, and it's #1 time. Meanwhile, if you have no idea you are hitting on somebody's partner, saying that usually doesn't matter much, because #1. You might be able to talk it down...but be prepared for 2 hours of couples counseling and a ruined night. Either case, fighting, or Dr. Phil, means: no walking away. 5. Some people are just F'ing nuts. In this case, running away is best. If you can't run, walking away is definitely not going to work, unless there's another dude on crutches or something . But seriously, you aren't leaving him. If you can't get away, the options here are informed by "crazy can be fought with crazy". Crazy doesn't expect you to play along, or be even more crazy. I once diffused a nut(off his meds) by dumping drinks over my head and yelling "The Bills make me want to shout!"(this was in Oklahoma City, so, I was doing WTF for everyone there). The guy, who had been threatening people with a bar stool, was boggled by my behavior, and distracted enough...to not see my left hook coming. The regulars/owner thanked me...but...I was "that weird dude" for the rest of my time there. Notice how I've kept this entire thing gender neutral? That's because I've been to many Tejano bars. And these rules, and many more, apply to the women there, NOT the men. There are plenty more situations where walking away isn't a choice: somebody slaps your kid. The Rocky movies have been by far the worst influence on this issue. They have supported the notion, amongst far too many short Italians, that they can win fights they cannot. The very worst thing that can happen? An undersized Italian winning in MMA. Every bar in the US will need to hire 2 more bouncers.

How about this? I mean, it's sorta old, but fun.

If we are going to talk about one game(one stat, one whatever ), then why not one practice? According to all media, EJ did very well yesterday, and Cassel and Taylor did not. Now, can anybody tell me that this piece of information is any more or less informative than anything else I've read in the last few pages? Go ahead and try. Should be good for a laugh. ------------- Orton? WTF Orton? Orton didn't belong on the field the last 4-5 games of the year. Period. ALL of you saw Orton's awful, pre-sack fetal position "move", with the potential sacker still 4 yards away. Don't lie. You know exactly what I'm talking about. EJ should have played after the first time Orton pulled his "move", because it screamed "I'm done with the NFL!". That's what a coach who is concerned more for his team, than himself, does. Hindsight is fairly clear on this one. Marrone is the type of coach who will cover his ass with his players. If he was serious about "building" something in WNY, he would have realized that Orton was going nowhere fast, and got EJ the game reps he required. Not to develop necessarily, but, to inform the organization as to whether he ever will, and, to take the risk that EJ plays better than Orton...and God Forbid...beat the damn Raiders and make the playoffs. But taking that kind of risk left St. Doug potentially exposed. What exactly was his thinking, leading up to week 12, if not "cover my ass"? Was it: "Orton's gonna win the first playoff game on the road?" Of course not. So, why didn't he send EJ in right then and there? Simple: doing nothing means you can't be blamed for doing something.

At what point do we inform ESPN that Rodak is on the bubble? I haven't read a thing from that guy in 18 months.

Wow, I believe you've covered at least 75% of George Noory's radio show in a single sentence. Impressive.

He Fox Buttefielded himself! Yes, I can't wait to hear how the Pope is both highly educated and conscientious, and, absolutely backward and dangerously ignorant, at the same time.

I have done nothing in this thread but cite data, and cite inconsistencies in data. Every single argument I have made is based on science, logic, and common damn sense. I have also used my extensive background in observation of human and organizational behavior. As time has gone on, my observations have been proven by events, and, those same events have overtaken the blind supporters of global warming. Miserable? Dude, ask anybody on this board who has met me: my life is far, far away from miserable. If that is your conclusion, then once again, we see that your approach and reasoning skills suck. Now, I will ask you again: WHY does an 18-year "hiatus" in global warming need an explanation if it doesn't exist? WHY are half the theory's supporters denying the hiatus, and the other half explaining it, at the same time? WHY is this guy, who created the AGW "story" 26 years ago, when he was the Chief Science Editor at The Economist, now calling himself a "lukewarmer"? You know what's miserable? The backpedaling, side-stepping, and, now, claims of victimhood by the guy who spawned the AGW media hysteria, in the link. You know what else is miserable? Your chances of answering these questions with any degree of scientific or intellectual honesty. This is hilarious irony and hypocrisy, rolled up around a creamy center of self-unawareness, and candy coated with Choice-Supportive Bias! Oh, God. Are we really gonna do this one again? EDIT: No, I see LA has handled it quite efficiently. I will add the infamous LBJ quote "[With the Great Society and War on Poverty], we'll have these !@#$s voting Democrat for the next 50 years!" You'll be damned if that relationship didn't play out exactly like LBJ predicted. As I've said often about this: "Forget the words: Look at the behavior". You are right: The very first thing that tipped me off to this being yet another "introduce and enforce socialism on a world that has roundly rejected it" vehicle, was the immediate jump to the same, old, not-solution before any of us had time to understand the problem. And, again behavior: The immediate demonizing of anyone who said "I see a problem with X, can you explain this?"...into being on par with a neo-nazi. It's hilarious that these clowns don't realize that every single time they use the word "denier", especially now, they knock themselves back another step. It tells us just how disingenuous the entire argument and those making it are: they were never serious about convincing anyone of anything. They knew damn well that this was a political issue from the get go, and they have BEHAVED as such. You don't decide who your enemies are, and start attacking them BEFORE anyone has had a chance to understand the problem, if you are merely an honest broker of science and real problem solver.

So um, how is this not what you want? The guy is clearly talking about his expectation that heads would roll, not that things would really change. The least of their concerns is/was going to the court. Their biggest concern was about going to Federal prison(perhaps not "pound me in the ass", but still). And, as I, and now this guy have said: The companies STILL have your data (and your metadata, and your pics, posts, etc. ) I don't remember you responding to my question: Option 1: Google invades your privacy for their own purposes, and then sells your data to the Feds for tax $, so that they can then invade your privacy, Is this better than, Option 2: NSA recording the data themselves, getting it and keeping it, for free/no tax $, so that they can then invade your privacy? That's what we are really talking about here. The court is involved either way. The only real difference is the NSA can't just do this by themselves with no checks and balances at all, which is what happened. But, ultimately, now, we are left with those 2 options. Which is "better"? Or, why do we want a wingnut leftist organization being in charge of anything, least of all being part of who gets spied on by the Feds? Why should the public pay them for data we can get on our own? How is that not corporate welfare? Why are we handing any of these companies this extraordinary power, and not holding them accountable via the same court system as the NSA? What is stopping Google from selling our data to China?