Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

It's over his head, he only understands pseudo-science.

 

Remember what you always say about CNN whenever someone uses it against you
Lloyd?

 

Hell Lloyd, all he has to do is show them this thread, you've damned
yourself here a hundred times over with your ignorant rantings.

 

I never did understand how the demo-crazies thought Jeb could do shit...

 

Um, no. There was a recount that wasn't finished in the LEGAL amount of
time... All recounts done after the elections was closed came out with bush
winning.

 

what's funny is the libs had no problem with gore asking for point
recounts... when bush asked for a statewide recount he was "stealing" the
election...

 

What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.

Worse, computer models divide the globe into discrete sections and
none of these sections can accurately account for cloud cover.

As a result, all models treat cloud cover as a parameterized input.
That is, he who wishes to model a prediction just adds in the cloud
cover affect just as he wishes.

 

"OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
women's right to choose is being fascist?"
Jesus, a woman also doesn't have the right to attempt suicide (yes,
attempted suicide is illegal). Personally, I feel that abortion is
premeditated murder; my opinion has nothing to do with a relegious stance.
I also don't care if abortion is legal or not. I do think it's funny that
libs are pro-baby-murder but anti death penalty. Of course, it's also funny
that anti-baby-murder folks are also pro death penalty. I like the military
motto of "kill them all, let god sort them out"

 

Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.

There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
predict what occured after that date.

To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
to base policy on.

Trouble is, too many people think that just because it came out of a
computer that makes it accurate and correct.

 

"Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?"
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...

 

The "public sector" jobs generate some taxes that go to the feds. The taxes
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.

 

You should know better than to respond to lloyd the moron.

 

First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.

Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive
instruments, and we will simply make up data for before we had any
instruments...

 

First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.

Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <

You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
lemming.....

 

Is MAD Magazine still in publication? He might still have a chance. ;-)

 

You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish a
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.

If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.

 

Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.

 

Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!

What kind of brain using person are you?

Oh wait, you are right.

 

You guys need to learn some "science".
Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-)

 

When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of shareholders?

That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether they own and
stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every share of stock
held and average the incomes of its owner.

I suspect the number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect
that most shares in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000
per year (or by companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per
year.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"