Steve,

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. To think that if NEVER happens would be a bit naive. But is more the outlier when we have issues as discribed by Miguel than the mean. And if a company continues to act that way, they place themselves at a competitive disadvantage because many people won't work for them.

And to hear huge corporations discribed as "nobility all over again" is a huge reach at best.

And to try to tie back into a more relevant topic since I don't want to deviate to far...

Turkey prices are very high this thanksgiving again.

Why? Because corn prices are still high due to the federal government pushing the insanity that is corn based ethanol. Ethanol laden gas is less effecient and damages your car's engine, but the gov't keeps on pushing it. Now corn is up, so too is beef and even the humble thanksgiving staple the turkey!

Edited by mpl_35 on 11/16/2010 11:47:02 MST.

Makes you wonder how long the turkey's will continue voting for Christmas as we say over here.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/turkeytech/

How to Say Thanksgiving in Mandarin


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574545663620908966.html

"Would you agree with me Lynn that it's great that the government has funded basic research into climate, but not so great that they have also funded a body (The IPCC) whose foundational raison d'etre is to find and disseminate supporting evidence for a highly uncertain co2 driven climate theory and exclude other possibilities from their output?"

No, I would not agree, as said before, you are working from a single narrow premise that you believe is right. Others work from a different premise which is no more or less likely to be "right".

nm

Edited by mpl_35 on 11/16/2010 13:16:24 MST.

Lynn says:
as said before, you are working from a single narrow premise that you believe is right.

On the contrary, the alarmists are the one's with the narrow perspective and the rhetoric of how certain they are and so nothing else might be the cause of warming. Which has turned out to be incorrect, but they won't admit it yet, if ever.

They are the uncertainty deniers.

I just can't link today.

Edited by mpl_35 on 11/16/2010 13:23:59 MST.

"The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."

This is where both 'warmists' and 'conspiracists' seem to be having problems. Both sides are entrenched and not willing to consider themselves as fallible. I am still waiting for the initial hypothesis on climate change to be accepted to a high enough standard, i.e. IS the climate warming (or cooling) more rapidly in the last 200 years or not? Until we can answer this question, all the other hypotheses being discussed here are just waffle IMHO. So while we wait for some consensus on this hypothesis, what can we do in the meantime? I suggest we look at and act on what IS generally consensus...fossil fuels are limited, pollution is rampant, destruction of environments and habitats is out of control. The obvious ways to move in this case then (to name just a few) would be to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and find less polluting methods to make best use of our planet. You do not need to invoke an unproven hypothesis to see the benefits of moving in this direction.

stat book

Edited by mpl_35 on 11/16/2010 13:26:13 MST.

and this story is helpful...

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi vs Nag

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/236

Lynn says:
This is where both 'warmists' and 'conspiracists' seem to be having problems. Both sides are entrenched and not willing to consider themselves as fallible.

I'm not sure who the 'conspiracists' are, though they seem to infest the consciousness of a lot of alarmists and airheads. Those skeptical of the AGW hypothesis are not entrenched, they just want to see an acceptable standard of evidence, book-keeping, replicability and data quality assurance. You know, the sort of thing professionals in most walks of life have to provide on a daily basis to those they are accountable to?

Sheesh.

fossil fuels are limited, pollution is rampant, destruction of environments and habitats is out of control. The obvious ways to move in this case then (to name just a few) would be to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels

No problem with your agenda. Just advising you to take it off the SS AGW, because that particular ship is going down.

Edited by tallbloke on 11/16/2010 13:33:54 MST.

book

ss agw

"No problem with your agenda. Just advising you to take it off the SS AGW, because that particular ship is going down."

I am not allied with any of the AGW camp, the warmists/alarmists/conspiracists or any other camp. I am, after all, a scientist first and foremost, so realise that we just don't know enough one way or another to say what is happening in relation to climate change. I also realise we may never know enough to reach 100% consensus, so we must do what humans have done forever. In other words, make our best educated guesses (hypotheses) and move forward. From a purely evidential point of view, I would rather see all the time and money being put into climate research and military offense to be spent instead on getting human population under control and ensuring ample clean food and water for the remaining, more sustainable population. I think this would be a far better investment in the planet and humanity than worrying about CO2.

"I am, after all, a scientist first and foremost, so realise that we just don't know enough one way or another to say what is happening in relation to climate change."

Really?

Hi Miguel

> For two months, the administration of her hospital, unhappy with the
> inconvenience her leaving would cause, daily subjected her to two hours of meeting,
> with her having to sit opposite a panel of 15 upper management members
> literally shouting at her,

Amazing, and appalling. My sympathy to you and your wife. Exactly what they were hoping to achieve leaves me bewildered.

If I had been there I would have suggested that your wife carry a small concealed mobile recorder into the second meeting, and every meeting after that. And then I would have put the recording on the web.
Or taken a lawyer with me into the meeting the second day.

All I can suggest now is that you migrate to Australia. This is said NOT in jest. We have a serious shortage of nurses here, and that sort of treatment would get the management fired if the Press found out. We just don't treat people like that. (With the exception of politicians, who need to be yelled at regularly.)

Cheers

man, this thread is tired.

where do y'all plan to go with this?

around in circles forever?

"I would rather see all the time and money being put into climate research and military offense to be spent instead on getting human population under control and ensuring ample clean food and water for the remaining, more sustainable population. I think this would be a far better investment in the planet and humanity than worrying about CO2."

+ a bunch