America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
Cursive was invented for the special needs of writing with quills and fountain pens.But it is still faster and easier than writing block letters.
Wow. Typos. "wants", "it", etc.
Um... WUT???Condon wan´t to put the Arts Dept. under the control of a bunch of PROPERTY DEVELOPERS??? Where is this guy´s head? Wait. Don´t answer that. Let´s keep in clean.But seriously... this is serious? What kind of warped rationale could be behind this?Getting grant funding I understand (but don´t necessarily agree with). But developer funds? Meh. That´s selling out.We were better off with Verner.
Um... this is nice and all, and we like to read this "behind the scenes" stuff... but would it be too much trouble to include a link to the actual article?No, if you know the first thing about how to do Web pages properly, the answer is NOT that you have a "home" link at the top. If you reference an article, link to it. That is considered the minimum polite thing to do.
Dunn was on the side of good when he defended that firefighter. The poor guy was a victim of a malicious young woman who broke the law... but he actually had not.The firefighter was roasted in the press and comments by the community, many of whom did not understand the law, or know the whole story. But in fact he broke no laws. She, however, was old enough to be subject to the prohibition against representing herself as being older than she was. And she had a prior history of such antics. Remember: she met him on an adult website that was legally restricted to 18 , and which required a credit card for membership. He had every reason to believe that she was over 18.And in fact, she was over the legal age of consent. But she was just not old enough to have pictures taken. The victim in this case -- the firefighter -- could not reasonably have been expected to know.As for the more recent cases... I don´t know enough to have an opinion. I can only hope Dunn is genuinely on the side of right, as he has been in the past.
Bill McKibben makes his living being an environmental alarmist. That´s what he does. To cite him, and indirectly endorse his (sometimes very misleading) claims, is hardly an unbiased stance on the issue.For example, in his Rolling Stone article, he claims: "So far, WE´VE raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius" [emphasis mine]. This comment isn´t even disingenuous; it is simply false. THE temperature has risen 0.8 degrees. WE might have contributed a little to it, but WE didn´t do it. It is still generally accepted that the majority of the rise has been due to natural causes. This gradual shift to the idea that we are responsible for the majority of warming does not have science behind it.The hypothetical figures given in the beginning of YOUR article -- 3 to 8 degrees by 2050 -- are also not supported by the science. That much warming was not predicted even by the alarmist IPCC, which predicted more like 2 degrees C (4.5 degrees F) by 2100!When confronted with such blatant BS in just the first few paragraphs, it was kind of hard for me to keep reading. But I did.Henning´s statement that the sun has been "discarded" as a possible cause is also... I´ll say "disingenuous" because I want to be polite. Total solar irradiance is difficult to measure at the best of times, and its fluctuations before less than about 20 years ago were never directly measured. Estimates of past irradiance based on other factors are fraught with error because, as I say, even with our modern instruments measurement of the differences is difficult. Estimations of the past via proxies have probable error ranges so wide that any possible signal is pretty much lost in the noise.Further, total solar irradiance is not the only way that the sun affects climate. Magnetic storms and other effects (like the "filament" that came our way just the other day) can have significant and cumulative effect. Again: these things were not directly measured in the past because we did not know how. Further, the only real proxy we have for estimating the past values of any of those things are intermittent and sometimes inconsistent records of sunspots. Hardly adequate.The sun is also just now coming off of the maximum of its 11-year cycle, ending the current period of "solar grand maximum", which means that longer-term cycles, as well as the 11-year cycle, all coincided at the same time. Past records show that temperature changes lagged the actual sun cycles by a couple of years, give or take. So it should be no surprise that we are having an unusually hot summer. The fact that the sun has slowed down over the last couple of years, often cited by the climate alarmists, is not very relevant to today´s weather.In your "History of Misinformation" section, the very first sentence is grossly misleading, and might be called misinformation itself:"By the mid-1990s, politicians began to act on the consensus that global warming was real and human-made."You left a few words out there. It should have said "and that humans were likely to be PART of the cause." Even if some scientists today think that humans are the major cause, most still don´t and back then just about nobody did.I could go on, but I´m not going to bother. This is a piece of junk masquerading as science reporting. It is woefully one-sided, and seems to reflect a popular (but very much incorrect) view that there is only one "side" to present.
I have a lot of respect for the Worthys, for putting up their own money to restore (and add to) the Davenport.However, I consider putting a hotel on Public Facilities District land to be a grossly inappropriate use of the land, especially on a speculative venture like a convention hotel in a climate of declining convention attendance.But the latter is not as important as the former. Even if the convention business were booming, I still would oppose this on the grounds that a hotel is not an appropriate use for Public Facilities District assets.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation