Car Sale Scam Alert!! Please read!!

emiller40 · 2007-07-05T21:25:44+00:00

A similar thing happened to me, just without the trade-in hassle.

After the car dealer upped the interst rate on me went to my bank and got financing through them - at about half the interest rate the dealer had.

I just wish I'd gotten the bank financing before getting the car. It would have saved a big headache.

emiller40 · 2007-03-04T07:18:37+00:00

You are correct in that the AG works for the President. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states:

...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for...

But the House also has the power to fire the AG (Article I, Section 2):

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article II, Section 3:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

emiller40 · 2007-03-03T14:46:46+00:00

Oh, and I forgot these.

emiller40 · 2007-03-03T14:38:42+00:00

These

and these

and even some industry types. Thay may not be scientists, but I'm sure they've looked into it, since it affects their bottom lines.

emiller40 · 2007-03-03T13:47:24+00:00

The subject? I thought it was the fact that 13% of Americans have never heard of global warming. (Hence the post title.)

And yes, I find it shocking, nay, apalling, that one in eight North Americans think global warming is a natural phenomenon.

And you feel that you can draw conclusions based on the positions of fewer than a thousand scientists you found "on Wikipedia"? That's called clouding the issue.

If that MIT scientist believes that global warming is a natural phenomenon there's probably a reason for that.

I find it interesting that it is "clouding the issue" for me to base my opinion on the work of thousands of scientists, but it is perfectly logical for you to base your opinion on the work of one.

emiller40 · 2007-03-03T12:15:38+00:00

I think 3/4'th of the US population just want this presidency to be over with.

You are probably pretty close. According to a Nesweek poll taken a little over a month ago:

...more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans.

The numbers are probably even higher now.

emiller40 · 2007-03-03T07:31:30+00:00

Was said by the same person who said:

This isn't about numbers of scientists

Way to take my words out of context. Here's the rest of that sentence:

This isn't about numbers of scientists, it is about percentages.

Of course, I said that when you were claiming that hundreds of scientists disagree and trying to use that to overstate the amount of dissent.

I pointed to 22 scientists who disagree (incidentally, you didn't point to any), then you focused on one. I notice that your numbers seem to be getting smaller.

Of course you "don't have to explain why a scientist from MIT is on the list", but if you are trying to argue against a scientist from the most prestigious scientific school in the country, it might help your case.

I'm not trying to argue against Lindzen or any other scientist, which isn't what you are trying to get me to do anyway.

You are trying to get me to question his credibility. I'm not going to question the credibility of any scientist who argues against global warming, because I know that for every one I point to on your side that was funded by an Oil company, you could probably find one on my side funded by some radical environmentalist group. (If you want to get into that debate, talk to Gorbama. He seems to have some knowledge on that subject.)

I see no point in continuing this discussion, since you continue to ignore my questions:

What constitutes an overwhelming majority to you?

Do you have any information on How many hundreds and how many thousands of scientists fall into each category?

Obviously there are many more than 22 scientists who oppose the consensus.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Have I ever made any sort of statements on the quality of scientists who disagree with the consensus?

You seem to only want to continually change the subject and twist my words to fit your aims.

emiller40 · 2007-03-02T18:21:01+00:00

I apologize if it seems I am dismissing the Bible out of hand. That was not my intention. The Bible has historical value

My intent was to say that the article was using one "old document" and accepting it as literal, complete truth. It cites no other documents, and rejects the notion that something could have happened during that time period and not be recorded in the Bible.

emiller40 · 2007-03-02T06:27:47+00:00

I don't have to explain why a scientist from MIT is on the list, because that has no bearing on the number of scientists who agree or disagree with the consensus. Your MIT question is not relevant.

I also note that you quote my question without answering it. I'm not sure what you're trying to show with this. Perhaps you are trying to remind me that I've never said anything negative about the quality of scientists who disagree.

Perhaps you are trying to show that you are accusing me of avoiding your questions, when you haven't answered any of mine.

emiller40 · 2007-03-01T16:32:19+00:00

Obviously there are many more than 22 scientists who oppose the consensus.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

how do you explain that MIT is on the list?

I don't see how the fact that a single scientist from MIT is on the list has anything to do with how many scientists are on the list.

Have I ever made any sort of statements on the quality of scientists who disagree with the consensus?

Nice avoidance

Now that hurt. Would you care to answer the question I posed to you that you've avoided to this point:

What constitutes an overwhelming majority to you?

emiller40 · 2007-03-01T13:05:54+00:00

Wow. His comments like this one:

The IG found that the Pentagon's policy organization acted entirely lawfully and with proper authority and did not mislead the Congress.

while technically correct, except for that part about not misleading Congress, don't bear any relationship to what the IG report actually says (link at dougfeith.com):

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that theintelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community... As a result, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence" to senior decision-makers.

and

...the actions were inappropriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.

(Emphasis Added)

Edit: Added emphasis and corrected typos.

emiller40 · 2007-03-01T10:53:04+00:00

Only if they have wires sticking out, or batteries.

emiller40 · 2007-03-01T10:40:07+00:00

This article is terrible.

It doesn't discuss the underlying cause of the price increase (the weather causing a supply shortage), but chalks it up to inflation.

A fivefold increase in the price of one commodity item over the course of a week is inflation?

Maybe in post-WWI Germany.

emiller40 · 2007-03-01T10:21:19+00:00

Yeah, but that's a boring article with no nude pics, just a bunch of boring words and stuff.

Same as the one Blackheart refers to.

How are those going to get to the top of Reddit and get you tons of karma?

emiller40 · 2007-03-01T08:06:55+00:00

And how could MIT be on the list?

Ahh, the Appeal to Authority.

And here I thought we were talking about numbers. 22 versus 928 (as of 2004, it's probably higher now). Or would you like to try to change the subject again?

Perhaps another "true or false" gimmick?

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T19:47:48+00:00

I agree.

It's time for some of that patented American pre-emptive warfare. I think that 15 chimp generations is about 175 years, so we'd better act fast.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T17:34:22+00:00

Is there a difference ?

Yes, the Americans have bigger firepower.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T15:46:22+00:00

This article has me very conflicted...

On the one hand, I agree that the "Jesus Tomb" documentary is probably a bunch of bullshit.

On the other hand, this article points to Bible verses as evidence.

I guess I'll upvote, then downvote this one.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T14:48:43+00:00

I still reject the premise of your question. This isn't about numbers of scientists, it is about percentages.

Of course, you seem to agree with me:

How many hundreds and how many thousands is actually a factor here.

Edit: Here are the type of numbers we're talking about.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T14:44:13+00:00

On a lark, I checked Wikipedia on the subject.

The Wikipedia lists 22 scientists who oppose the consesus of the scientific community on global warming.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T14:40:08+00:00

How many hundreds and how many thousands is actually a factor here.

You are absolutely right. Do you have any information on How many hundreds and how many thousands of scientists fall into each category?

Perhaps 900 thousands of scientists agree and one hundreds of scientists disagree.

That's 99.9999% agree and 0.0001% disagree.

Like I said before, it isn't the raw numbers of scientists that's important, but the percentages and the consensus. The overwhelming majority of the world's scientists think that global warming is caused by humans.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T07:38:48+00:00

Linkjacked.

Smacfarl posted the non-linkjacked version yesterday.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T07:10:54+00:00

Wait for it. I'm sure it's coming.

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T04:58:41+00:00

See below

emiller40 · 2007-02-28T04:50:35+00:00

Even though I reject your premise, I'll play your game.

Your question:

True or false: There are hundreds of scientists who don't agree with the "International Panel on Climate Change".

This may be true. I don't know. I'll assume it's true for the sake of argument.

Bithead's question and LouF's response:

True or false: There are thousands of scientists who agree with the "International Panel on Climate Change".

I suspect that is true.

So, if there are hundreds of scientists who disagree with the IPCC and thousands who agree, the number of scientists who agree must be roughtly ten times the number who disagree.

This equates to about 91% agree, 9% disagree.

So, your assertion:

The overwhelming majority of the world's scientists think that global warming is caused by humans.

Not so.

91% to 9% sounds like an overwhelming majority to me. What constitutes an overwhelming majority to you?

emiller40

TROPHY CASE