Maybe not "environment", ec, but they should be able to shout "Grand Canyon" and shut the two monstrosities down that are planned at Tusyan and at the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers.Rick
You know, that phrase 'stake in the game' just struck me wrong. As it stands, the natural beauty speaks for itself without need for justification, and exploiters seeking 'the game' are creating a situation, not just participating in one. The ethics of 'exploitation as a game' leave one needing a shower.
Exactly right, Rick. But those who seek to profit are all too often socialistic conservatives. They are the ones who frequently exploit something in an attempt to gain immediate, temporary profits without any consideration of future consequences. Then, when the conseqences begin to manifest themselves, they sell the operation off and leave the mess for others. In the case of parks and publi
Sure makes sense to me that those who seek to profit from the exploitation should pay the burden of the environmental assessment. Unless one is to be the one profiting, there are no positive definitions of the word 'exploit'.
But why can't those developers simply buy the services of a few Congressmen to push through a big pipeline from Lake Powell to provide water for their development forever and ever?I just read that in the early 19th Century, members of Congress regularly came to the floor with knives in their belts. Today they come with wads of lobbyist money in their pockets.
Gary - Fyi, Kurt is away from the site for a bit this evening, and a volunteer moderator is trying to keep the discussion in bounds. As a result, yes, some comments are being edited, rather than deleting them entirely. I'd appreciate your cooperation so that won't be necessary.
yes algorithms and functions can change,We aren't talking about algorithms and functions. We are tallking about the data. If the temperature reads 76 and they record it as 78 they are "adjusting" (manipulating) the data.
Man, I can tell you've never worked on anything that uses data. I have worked in IT related industries most of my career, and yes algorithms and functions can change, if they are not accurate or are shown to present errors. If variances, or even errors are discovered, then functions can be rewritten, slightly modified, and new queries that pull the data are generated. Usually functions evolv
Question: "Gary, are these " scientists that are grounded in experimentation, math, and research" adjusting the data or not?"Answer (from Gary) "Isn't that how science works?"Thats not affirmation? Ok- I'll give you another chance - Are they adjusting the data or not?
Sorry, but copying and pasting an entire webpage into a comment to use it as your argument is not "citing". I wish Kurt would just kill those posts, because they take up half a comment thread, when all beachdump has to do is post a link. I love how you cherry pick my comments and take it out of context. I did not say anything about changing the data. I clearly said this:
Isn't that how science works?No its not. You don't adjust the data to fit your hypothesis. You adjust your hypothesis to fit the data. is simply called "plagarism",Citing someone elses work is hardly plagarism. Manufacturing data is clearly deception.
It's simple. There are polticians, that are mostly just marketers with great BS skills, and there are scientists that are grounded in experimentation, math, and research. The politicians turn every little thing into a political football just to stir up division to obvious challenges. This is how a majority of this country acts anymore, and it's why we are quickly becoming nothing more than a
It is troubling that anyone who dares to question the validity of global warming/ climate change and it’s causes is ridiculed for doing so. Good scientists are always questioning their results and the data that goes into them. That is how the science gets better.
I agree Jim, anyone that thinks an organization has more crediblity simply based on the number of likes on their facebook page doesn't utilize strong critical thinking skills. This is like pretending that the average moron we elect to congress has more scientific knowledge than a nasa scientist that has spent 30 years of his/her life researching the subject. The moron in congress might have 1
Sadly, too many people today accept that just because a publication or organization has lots of "Facebook likes" or Twitter feeds, it surely must be credible. Yes, I admit in this case to dismissing the source.
Interesting comment Jim, I am not sure it is that difficult to research the sources of information we are all exposed to as you pointed out with "The Daily Caller". That is important, as much that is put out there is bought and paid for by one advocacy group or another, some creditable, some not. In some cases it is just money driven, some are laughing all the way to the bank.
I'd never heard of that that site,That's your short coming not the Daily Caller's. They have nearly a half million facebook page likes - more than twice Kurt's site.Rather than attacking the source, why don't you refute their argument?
Owen, thanks for the post. I attended a climate change workshop this last weekend in conjunction with other agenda items. Heading the panel was Jim Stewart. PhD, a noted expert on the issue here in California. Have you come across any of his posts?
There is increasing evidence that Homo Sapien is the dumbest species on earth.Really Lee. Please show us the comparative study of the intelligence of Homo Sapiens against every other species. Just another of your unsubstantiated accusations.
The yearly inflation rate, of an annual parks pass, from 2005-2009 is 3.4 percent. The inflation is similar from 2009-2015 at 3.8 percent. The rate increase spirals skyward, in the 2 year period from 2015-2017, at 9.5 percent. Taking the years between 2009-2017, yearly inflation of an annual pass, is 5.2 percent. 2009 is the year the Federal Reserve opened the flood gates with a river of li