ParanoiA

No, for two reasons. One, as I've repeated in the past here, the current system is more of a socialized bubble within a capitalist framework. Most of us get our insurance from our job, not by free choice. With this kind of association, insurance companies don't compete for individuals, they compete for whole companies with a different view of quality than an individual might - and a somewhat smaller base to be sure. McCain tried to fix this but was maligned for it. Ever since WWII companies have used the tax-free benefits of healthcare in lieu of pay - the employer's dollars going further than an individual's. And of course, the sheeple that we are, we just go right along with it. McCain tried to eliminate that tax advantage, which would have caused a tax on the employee - that's the part they used to malign him and conveniently leave out the whole purpose. Which was to eliminate the advantage the employer has over the employee with healthcare benefits. That's why McCain suggested the $5,000 tax rebate so it would cancel most of the newly incurred taxes. But no one could see the forest from the trees. And Obama's plan that just passed is even worse, because now we're fully committed to insurance companies being middle men for every single american, for every single bill, at least in theory Wow. How incredibly stupid. Even wal-mart customers and drug dealers now how much of a drain middle men are. Two, because people receive service without paying for it, it strikes right at the heart of free market trade. Free market principles cannot work when we undermine the assumptions they depend on. We undermine this system for noble purposes, to be sure, but we have to realize we are introducing unnatural foundational conditions for a system that relies on them to function. These two reasons are among the list that I believe undermine otherwise natural cost controls in the market. Now, the only thing that will manage costs is government force, from time to time, trying to figure out how to run a market that's so distorted from anything free; manufacturing a check for every unnatural force they introduce. Here, Here.

I agree. And he's a democrat. Now what? Just kidding...I know what you meant.

I would add an amendment that requires an equally invested citizenry - apportioned taxation. I do not think it right or proper that a person paying 30% of their income in taxes should be limited to the same voting voice as someone paying 10% of their income, or as we see today, paying 0% and then making money back from Earned Income Credit. ( I know, because I made a ton of money off of you people all through the 90's using it. Thanks.) All citizens should be equally taxed as a percentage - apportioned. That includes a sales tax, even though people buy various quantities of goods it is still equal in terms of no qualifying exception for any person. Voting the tax burden to the rich minority, and tax relief to one's self, is the trend of tyrannical hypocrites that make up the majority of our current citizenry right now, from what I can tell. It's so easy to take advantage of the inherent envy of those who are not as successful and shrewd in the practice of trading good and services. The rich epitomize what most of us cannot, or in most cases simply will not, accomplish. It's a snap to convince most of society that they do it by nefarious means - even though we all behave the exact same way, with the exact same approach in our private lives. Yeah, it would never pass. Conservatives wouldn't even like it.

I have no idea what conservative you're referring to, but I don't make much of the list. The list is really only valuable to those of you invested in a side keeping score on who's putting one over on the american people. Have fun with it. "The other guy did it" partisan routine I see you post so much is a tired old argument technique that fails so awfully because it excuses bad behavior and bad logic by simply checking to see if it is being mirrored by "the other side", instead of checking to see if it is right. Competition psychology at the expense of right and wrong is nothing to be admired in really any subject I can think of. Is there something about it you find moving? Can I kill random people if someone else is killilng even more random people? It's a cute list. And I'm sure, somewhere out there, someone is compiling a democratic one, or maybe they're not, and maybe democrats are really less corrupt and all that....so what?

Is this in reference to the mandate that the conscripted were to fund their own government required militia effects? The best constitutional counter I've heard thus far is the Capitation Clause of Article I, section 9: You cannot tax a fixed amount, per head of the citizenry. And after hearing from some congresscritters that actually read part of the bill, they formed this as a tax break option. If I understood correctly, they see this like a tax break in buying a home. You only get the break, if you satisfy the requirement. So, if you have health insurance, you get the "break" of 750 bucks, or whatever they've decided it's going to be. Essentially, they've framed it so it's a tax that everyone pays and proof of insurance coverage relieves you of the tax. So, it would be difficult to make the case that it taxes by capitation. But I still think they have a better shot at that than the forced product purchase argument. De facto, we all understand what's going on here. But legally, they've done a good job of walking that line. Frankly, I wish some states would talk about seceding, like Texas. That's our only hope of retaining some free population on the earth. All the rest are hell bent on making us all the same, boring, stale sheeple guided by a fair master. Because I sincerely believe that our countrymen think those days of governments turning on their citizens are for history books. Giving the government lots of power is how you evolve as a citizenry. That growth, development, morality, altruism, all come from non-profit government - not from greedy private industry. And anyone who fears or dislikes big government is a tea partier, fundamentalist white christian male that hates minorities and women getting power. At least that's what I heard on CNN last night. But yeah, Fox spreads lies and propaganda...nobody else.

Because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We use democratic principles throughout the execution of the republic, but we are not a democracy. So, merit means nothing to a constitution. That's why we have such a thing as amendments. Amendments were thought up just for the very reason you very correctly laid out in paragraph 2. Amendments require 3/4 of the states to ratify - a very solid majority of the country - or a super majority you could say. Amendments are how you change the constitution. The constitution gets its value from its rigidity. That's the whole point. That's why all 330 million of us could vote to hang toastywombel just for the fun of it - 99.9% yes vote - and we still couldn't do it....that damn constitution that guarantees due process, stops us. If it was a flexible document that only required us to believe our cause to have "merit" - then we'd obviously say it has merit and hang poor toastywombel. What kind of document is that? If something has merit, then it should be passable as an amendment. We don't do amendments anymore, and I'm not sure why. I think it's because it's easier to just get a supreme court judge to interpet the document differently...

Ok, I'll play along. A quick google search... http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/mediabias101.aspx Oh, here's one that looked cool: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx Is anyone really surprised? Can we move along and stop playing "what media bias?"

Sorry, it's not a fact. It's an opinion I have, based on 20+ years of paying attention to politics. Just like it's an opinion that Fox news is slanted to the right. It is not fact. And asking me to source or provide evidence of my perceptions would be impossible since I have noted this since I was teenager. I'd say the odds are low since there are very few people in this world that can convince me of anything. I read and gather information and reconcile that with my belief system. And the output in this case is yet another offense by the state, another encroachment of our liberty traded for security. And thus far, the only person I've heard say that, is myself. Now we have something that can be sourced as factual. Ooops! I didn't say all that above ANYWHERE...darn, now what? Maybe you keep asking for sources because your conscience is giving you away? No, the claim I made was that Inter-state commerce was not expanded to include Intrastate anything and everything until the New Deal era. I carefully laid that out for all to see. The case that expanded on the word "commerce" to include manufacturing, production and so forth was NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp, 1937, but that didn't effect intra-state anything and everything. The case that did that, was Wickard v Filburn (1942 - New Deal era) and expanded on the phrase "inter-state" to include anything Intra-state that can effect inter-state in the aggregate. That's how they can regulate marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, potatoes, tables and chairs if they wanted to. Who's asking you to do that? What did I ask you to vote for? I'm sorry, I forgot to tune into Fox news to find out what I'm supposed to think today. Let me consult Rush Limbaugh's website to get my marching orders and belief system updates and I'll respond back... It really does. But I've come to expect it here, which is why I make a couple of posts and then go away for a while. You eventually learn how to handle the children's sandbox. But thanks for trying. Nice to see you as an immortal again, Phi.

Ah, very good points. Yes, I have to agree with you here. You're right, I was focused on elementary level. I agree, we need something more rigorous and at least a resemblance to impartiality if possible.

Yeah, and I'm still bitter about it. I'll never forgive Fox for this, nor their marginalization of statesmen that counter their conservative status quo. That they hired Stossel, is a small concession that doesn't go real far. Beck is not a libertarian, he's a theotarian (I think I made that word up, but I'm not sure), so he doesn't count, and strikes very heavily against them. Ok, I've failed to make myself clear. I mean that their real life experiences provide the anti-government "the-man-always-gets-his-first" mindset. But that alone, doesn't motivate a tea party. The second punch is the Fox effect which provides the socialism klaxon for the healthcare bill. They are already resentful of the government to some degree, at least with taxation and economic liberty (lord knows the conservative ones care very little about civil liberty) so when Fox rallies them over the Healthcare Bill and how it 1) forces people to buy products 2) from an exchange set up by that same government they don't trust 3) and versions that except union shops from having their "cadillac" plans taxed - it very rightly motivates them. And of course, Fox doesn't sound the Klaxons when republicans trash the budget, make excuses for intrusive military actions and trample our civil liberties - only when democrats do it. So I think that's why they were never motivated before. I'm extremely concerned about this bill, probably more than any other in my life. I'm genuinely offended and I've found myself soul searching on how I can effect change in this world, like through my artistic efforts or writing. I've never, ever been like that before. I've always just remained a cynic, comfortable in the George Carlin vain of it's-all-bullshit and it's-all-going-down-and-we-deserve-it. The more I read and learn, the more offended I have become at just how far we have drifted away from tolerance and individual choice and liberty. We just don't hold those in higher esteem anymore. This hijacked tea party movement, whether I like it or not, is the closest thing to a libertarian movement I've seen in my lifetime. I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels that way.

Last I checked, there were more teabaggers than a crowd one day in DC. I think we have something like, 50 states full of humans, some of which are tea party fanatics. We're easily talking thousands. So yes, 57 in one spot, in DC, one day, doesn't say squat about the thousands of teabaggers all over the US. Or are you trying to make believe they are a traveling esoteric tea party gang? Besides, my 124 slaughters that pathetic 57 anyway.. And 40% of them are college grads, which trumps the general population. I, of course, demand a better sample and proceedure before I'm buying the latest spin piece. You want me to source perceived liberal and conservative bias as factual? Can that even be done? Do I need to provide a source for my opinion of the color blue as well? It serves your anti-Fox position anyway, so I'm not sure why you're challenging my perception. Fox news pimps conservative pundit after pundit, with conservative commentators one show after the next. O'reilly, Hannity, Greta, Beck, Stossel, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly...jeez do I need to go on? And do you ever remember this kind of conservative onslaught on TV, on one channel, before Fox news? That's the point. Conservatives haven't had this kind of "support", if you will, in media so they are profoundly effected by it - in my opinion, which I will not source thank you. You've lost me here. I have literally no idea what you're on about here and how in the world you got there. How about dropping the baggage and stick to what I've actually posted? Oh jeez, don't tell me you've canned and labeled me a conservative...I thought I earned more respect here than that.

Well, I certainly agree on the Fox news bit effecting them more profoundly. Before Fox, there wasn't alot of conservative opinion and slant to counter the liberal opinion and slant that still dominates the networks. Back to that first point though, my opinion is that their real life experiences are what lead them to a generalized anti-government mentallity. Most of the teaparty movement identifies itself as conservative/libertarian, but "Independent" in terms of party, so that you get this effect of republicans being the lesser evil of the two. I hope you're not referring back to that 57 sample size pretend column on teabagger mentallity when you ask about them believing Obama is taxing them more. I think they believe Obama will tax them more due to the healthcare bill, not so much that he is. Of course, you also get the brain dead in any of these groups and they say silly things like Obama is taxing us more, or Bush caused Katrina.

I dispute the impact of these two cons. The first one suggests an opportunity for abuse, which already exists whether or not they go to public school. That seems more like filler for the cons column. As far as teaching talent, or method though, it is a valid con. I would agree with that. The second one suggests kids never leave the house except to go to school. I don't get that. Kids generally go out and play and socialize with the neighborhood after school, and I'm not sure why homeschooling supposedly precludes this. However, certainly the measure of how much social interaction would be decreased. I would suspect the advantages of better managing their peer group choices and perceived harmful external influences would be worth the decrease in social interaction. They're not hermits, they're just doing school at home. Also, where's the pro on costs? Granted, I don't know that any districts in the United States reimburse school related taxes, but maybe they do in your country Tree? At any rate, it's certainly a potential incredible savings (which is why our government will *never* give up that money). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States Or directly from that link used by Wiki: http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35341645_1_1_1_1,00.html There will be costs associated with homeschooling, but no doubt it will pale dramatically in comparison to $11,000 per kiddo, per year, in public schools. Comparing this to my community college costs - subtracting tuition and parking fees of course - I doubt it would top over a few hundred bucks. But that's an inexperienced opinion to be sure. And considering the utter disgrace in quality we're getting with this monetary hydrogen bomb of funding, public school advocates aren't in any position to be talking smack about home schooling.

Wow, a sample size of 57 in one location, one day? Seriously? Anyone who believes that's a relevant sample size for anything more than The Daily Show is in dire need of a lesson on the scientific method. But hey, if that passes the test here on SFN, then this CNN poll should blow everyone away with a whopping sample size of 124, more than double of that above - wow, talk about accuracy! http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf According to this poll, 40% are college graduates and 66% earn more than $50K per year. I wonder if any of them were asked those questions above... Seriously though, I believe they are generally more rural and suburban type folk (the stereotypical "southern" culture more or less). I don't believe they are all that educated, but of course their cause is not formed by an intellectual appeal either. It's formed by real life experience - their payroll witholdings, their income taxes, their property taxes, sales taxes - money they pull directly out of their wallet or never see arrive in their wallet in the first place on payday. You can post all the polls and columns you want and pretend you're miles above their intellect and it still isn't going to erase their memory of what comes out of their wallet for Uncle Sam. And in terms of the healthcare bill they don't like exchanging freedom for security. You don't get either when you try it. (Hmm...seems like there was a fella that said that years ago...people love quoting that from him when it comes to war but they conveniently forget it when it comes to anything else...I wonder who that was..?) As an aside, I find it kind of funny that when someone gets teabagged, that implies they are "catching" as opposed to "pitching". I would think the label of a teabagger, the pitcher, is a disparagement to whomever is catching. And I think that's the socialistic collective they're organizing against. Go teabaggers.

There is a very powerful counter argument made by Madison himself, and several others, though Hamilton certainly disagreed. And I'm not sure how anyone can argue around it, but they've managed to. The argument is simple: If general welfare means they can pass any law as long as it qualifies to Congress as general and not special, then what's the point of enumerated powers? Madison said the general welfare clause was short hand for the enumerated powers, that those two words didn't magically cancel out the subtending list of enumerated powers in section 8. What's the point of a lenghty, wordy constitution if it can be distilled down to "general welfare" qualification? You're certainly welcome to disagree, but don't pretend jryan is a space cadet because he holds the enumerated powers in higher esteem than that two word weasle phrase that supposedly cancels them all out. It was just waiting for a flexible, activist supreme court to exploit it. We're living on the planet that contains a population that claims to be the land of the free, while they cultivate a legislature of socialistic collectivists that see no liberty issue in forcing citizens to buy products. Other than that gross violation, I do concede that we have expanded upon the view of the framers in the supreme court (namely the New Deal court, I think Roosevelt appointed 7 judges during his presidency?) via judicial activism. That's how you get 150 years of precedent over turned.

No, I don't think I misunderstood you at all. But you most definitely did not understand me. This opening sentence demonstrates you didn't soak up my point at all about truth. *You* revere demonstrable evidence, but demonstrable evidence is not objective reality, it's still very subjective. I agree with you, and so does the majority of humans on the planet (arguable actually), but we can't *prove* that demonstrable evidence is truth. And when you consider a belief system that presupposes a manipulative reality by some force we don't understand, it becomes obvious that our appeals to evidence are shallow to them, because that very evidence was manipulated by the deity - in their view, crudely summarized. And we can't prove them wrong. I think you could use some heavy doses of Robert Anton Wilson. Or at least, to understand why others don't hold substantiated evidence in esteem like you and I do. This country was partly founded on the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want - not persecuted, judged and ignored. That's what allowed the various ideologies to grow and develop here - like liberalism for instance. If we policed what we consider to be 'stupid ideas', we would still be a puritanical bore. Look how far we've come in marginalizing god and religion since the founding. Freedom to believe what you want works very well. If we didn't freeze that in principle, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Freedom to believe stupid shit did this for us. I agree that appears to be more dangerous, but only because we don't hold their views. We hold the views they are countering, so of course we are threatened by it. I've asked this probably a thousand times...what is there to teach in ID? God did it. How long does that take to say? How much "study" is involved in, 'oh yeah, god did it'? And most creationists that I've argued with don't dispute the evolutionary processes. They just don't agree with Descent of Man, which uses the evolutionary theory. In fact, many of the ones I've debated with understand the micro level of evolutionary theory surprisingly well. I've had to comb through Talkorigins.org many hours to find the crucial pieces to counter their arguments with. So, at the end of the day, they believe in all the machinations we observe that comprise the theory of evolution - they just dispute that complex life came from it. That suggests it is to still be taught - with that reminder thrown about that "god did this". I'm more disturbed by the notion that they believe the earth is 6,000 years old. But, you have to ask yourself, how bad is that, really? How does that create a functional life threatening problem? As noted above, people were taught the earth was flat. So what? One day they were told it was round. They probably said, "no shit?", and asked a hundred questions and moved on. We keep acting like this is some terrifying spiral into death and destruction just because some segment of the country believes differently. We've always had incredible divides of beliefs here, with astonishing degrees of extemism. We have a guy here at work that sincerely believes his government plotted 9/11. Yet, he's a great technician with a wife and couple of kiddos living in a nice neighborhood. People can believe crazy things and it doesn't mean we will all die. Then you should redirect your objections to that sytem shouldn't you? It's only a false view to you, and they feel you have railroaded them with false views for years in public schools. If a small number of people can effect so many, and this offends you, then I would direct my anger at that. It's not what they believe that's a problem, it's that everyone must conform to it that creates a problem. I have a huge problem with it, albeit a little different. Here in Blue Springs, MO, we have schools that regulate hair cuts and send kids home for "freaky" hair cuts and styles. But since our public school system uses geography to lock you into certain schools, and your tax money is taken to pay for that school, they have done a bang up job of blocking choice. You have to be able to pay your way out of it to choose a school with a rule structure that aligns with your own. It's disgusting. Everyone must conform to this school's ridiculous rules because we can't afford to get out of it. I don't have a problem with schools that employ a strict rule system of clothing, hair cuts, and so forth - because I respect that other parents obviously want this rule. I have a problem with my lack of choice. And that's the problem I see here. It's not Texas' fault publishers want everyone to use the same book. Texas should not have to shut up and conform with the status quo just because XYZ publishing company won't flex for other states.

Dare I point out the obvious? The earth as round *was* taught. You're doing the exact same thing as Texas is doing. Imagine Texas as astounded as you: If enough people decided the earth was round, we should allow it to be taught? Yes, of course. If enough people believe the earth revolves around the sun, we should allow it to be taught? Yes, again. Look, it's real simple. Your beliefs are based on an assumption of evidence based substantiation of reality. I share your assumptions and I believe it is superior. They don't. Their beliefs are based on an assumption of manipulative reality by a deity. Neither of you are factually correct. Neither of you can prove your claim to truth any more than the other. You have equal claim. You keep throwing up these examples of teaching fraud, or at least counter to the common understanding of things, and that's a strawman. Again, they aren't proposing to change the factual record, they are proposing to pay attention to this detail, as opposed to that detail. We are and have been doing the same thing when we say pay attention to Jefferson, not Calvin. You, I and the rest of the planet, that hands down knowledge to their offspring, pick and choose which details we want to impart. We always have. Texas has chosen other details that they believe are important and they want those details taught, and other details discarded. Just like we have been choosing details like "democracy" (talk about fraud) and Jefferson and stressing the separation of church and state. Again, you don't have a monopoly on the truth of history. You come at this from the same direction as the rest of us. Your whole belief system is built on knowledge manipulated by those before you...and those before them...and those before them...and so on. How do you get the hubris to deem your view of history as right? How do you know?

Ah yes, the self-executing rule. Not sure if you all found this or not, but it gives a fair description of the practice. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/16/2229330.aspx They get their authority from Article 1, section 5. This is the complete text: From: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html There is very little direction on the extent of these rules. Certainly nothing that allows chickenshit "deem and pass" games with the rules. I wonder how long it will take before they attempt to go to war with this tactic. But it won't stand. INS v. Chadha (1983) and Clinton v City of New York (1998) both held that there was only one way for a bill to become law and that requires passage of the bill in one house, approval of the "exact text" in the other, and a presidential signature or 2/3rds majority vote to override. The 1998 Clinton v NY Line item veto was unconstitutional based on Article 1, Section 7, mainly the Presentment Clause, and this is the full text: I have faith the supreme court will knock it down if they do this. Either way though, it's a nasty bit of cowardice to use a self-executing rule and I had no idea it was used so much. I can't imagine how it was ever allowed.

Hard to argue with such impressive font. But, as I said, it appears everyone already realizes it's effected by politics and religion and I'm not sure how you'd keep from it. After all, this is collective democracy at work at the local level and the people motivated to get on boards and such are generally going to be more politically involved and active. Attend your local PTA meeting and tell me that isn't political. But more importantly, "political" does not imply "fraud". I have a political reason for being here, and so do you, so does that mean everything we say here is a lie? This is akin to GW denialists claiming that the link between science and government funding implies fraud by scientists. This is not an alternate view of the events in our history. It's an alternate emphasis of the events in our history. Remember, we are ignorant about most of human history if you consider every possible population and their entire rise and fall on this planet. The rest of the world was just as busy as America, yet we learn far more about America than anyone else, while still remaining hopelessly ignorant about most of it. And it's practical considering we can only cram so much data in that noggin. So you can learn a ton of stuff shallowly or a focused chunk deeply. We just cherry pick the facts and events that seem pertinent to our culture and our youth - and it's a subjective maneuver right out of the gate. This starts locally. Schools in my neighborhood vary from schools in my old town, let alone state variation. And why do we have schools? It's not just to learn the cold logic of math and english. We need variety. After all, if we had more variety all of this time, they wouldn't have been able to establish the practice of printing the same book for the whole damn country, now would they? Diversity and tolerance my friend. We have many stripes here in this country and they don't deserve to be ignored because some segment of the country has "deemed and passed" that religion and right wing ideologies are stupid.

Funny, from reading the posts here it appears most agree that history is and has been revised regularly. In that vain, it would appear an advantage for various states to use different text books to increase the odds one of them may actually be true. It's more likely that they all contain some element of truth and some element of spin. One of the things I've always loved about Texas is that fiesty independent spirit that just pisses off the collective. Go Texas. These changes sound interesting. Being a Jefferson fan, I'm offended they don't revere the man enough. But studying about the build up to our revolution psychology sounds excellent. And we are a constitutional republic, so it's nice to resize the democracy concept back to proportion. We use democratic concepts throughout the execution of the republic, but we are not a democracy. The constitution shuts that down and plays a far bigger role than democracy. Too bad we don't have more of this all over the country. We are in dire need of individualism and intellectual competition. No one has a monopoly on absolute truth, but to hear liberals complain about this you'd think they believe in such silliness. Yes, other people might want to learn a different piece of history than you. Surprise! We aren't all the same after all. Yay! I believe the bit about civil rights had to do with including more of the partisan politics, which sounds like an increase in accuracy to me, to tell the tale with detail. The coolest thing that could come from all of this, would be to see left wing home schooling take off in response. That would be awesome, and very good for education in this country.

I've been playing both of those for a couple of decades now, including bass and some "attempts" at piano. Never been into performing, I'm purely a home studio enthusiast that enjoys writing and recording above all else. You have anything recorded yet? I always enjoy listening to other amatures. I've been more impressed and surprised with non-professionals in this thing. The pro's mostly sell a product. Us amatures seem to be more artistically "pure" (at the risk of pretentiously feigning disregard to cover up envy for an actual audience )

The argument I'm getting is coming from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html First of all, I'm not sure how to counter this argument. I know that Lindzen and Choi have been proven wrong before and I remember someone posting a link here a few months ago that linked to a rebuttal of a paper of theirs on measuring the heat radiating off of the planet, post peer-review if I remember correctly. I strongly suspect that same paper was used in these "three points" mentioned above, 1997, 2006 "compared" with 1970, whatever that's supposed to mean. Second of all, this sentence strikes me as problematic: Do we take the solar activity to remain constant? Does the input energy remain relatively constant? It would seem to me that you couldn't go by simply measuring OLR emmissions if the input is variable. I don't know... There are lot of people running around about this OLR emmission and how there must be a decrease otherwise the theory is invalid. If there really wasn't any decrease in OLR emmission, would that be a true conclusion? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If the amount of warming wasn't significant enough statistically over the last 15 years, then how bad is global warming? If it's only warming at a rate that equals the weather noise, then how is that significant on a longer term?

Thanks! Looks like they're waiting now for Lindzen and Choi's rebuttal. Interesting.