Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17082)	4/24/2006 8:44:52 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541336

As I reflected on that disconnect, I concluded was that what they meant to say was that sun dimming was masking the greenhouse effect, that the greenhouse effect is actually worse than it seems because the temperature rise is being mitigated by sun dimming. That is the correct deduction and I'm surprised that the progamme did not make that clear. Of course, as particulate aerosol pollution gradually falls (because if nothing else we're going to run out of carbon to burn in such wasteful ways) the dimming will dwindle and surface warming will increase further.

To: Lane3 who wrote (17082)	4/24/2006 9:24:02 PM
From: mph	Respond to of 541336

-Labor and Employment Law- Where terms of plaintiff’s employment required her to transcribe sexually oriented jokes and discussions related to the creation of a television situation comedy featuring sexual themes, and where such jokes and discussions included sexually coarse and vulgar language that included discussion of the writers’ own sexual experiences but, for the most part, did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such language constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within the meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or that the comments were severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that was hostile or abusive to plaintiff in violation of the FEHA. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions - filed April 20, 2006 _________________________________________________ The foregoing is a blurb describing the CA Supreme Court's recent decision in the so-called Friends case. The "FEHA" refers to the State's Fair Employment and Housing statutory scheme. The majority opinion did not reach the First Amendment issues. They decided the case on the narrow issue of whether the plaintiff was subjected to the offending conduct because of her sex. This case made the news at each step in the proceedings. I always figured the Court would find against the plaintiff. The question was whether the First Amendment aspect would be addressed. IMO, there is always a tension between protected speech and the sensibilities of others. It's also interesting that the subject matter of Friends was so highly sexually charged. (I haven't watched it since the first season,so didn't keep up.) Here the creative process that purportedly lead to the complaint was claimed to be the springboard for what ultimately appeared on national TV. (I did think some of that was a stretch.) It's somewhat ironic that we as a society are so free in our discussion of sexual topics and the use of sometimes vulgar language in the entertainment field and outside the work environment, yet cases of sexual harassment in the workplace often present circumstances far less over-the-top in terms of sexual content. This case was noteworthy due to the intersection between the "real world" and the workplace.. I thought it might be interesting to this thread because it is an example of the difficulty of accommodating diverse interests. The Court also declined to tackle the larger issue of First Amendment rights. Here's a few articles commenting on the decision: marketwatch.com chicagotribune.com cnn.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (17082)	4/24/2006 9:34:38 PM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541336

The sun is not burning out. The "dimming" is not a phenomenon of reduced solar energy striking our planets ozone layer. The dimming is caused by the trapped particulates in the atmosphere, by products of combustion for the most part. The message is that we are creating a greenhouse effect with this crap. This results in a perceived dimming of the Sun and produces a corresponding elevation of the Earths temp. They failed to make that point?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17082)	4/24/2006 10:41:52 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541336

The problem may be that the sun is not dimming at all; my reading suggests that we are in a bright cycle, with more solar storms than usual, which might increase global warming. Moreover, the fact that there is less air pollution might very well mean that more of this increased solar energy is getting through unimpeded, warming us even more. It's complicated, don't take anything on faith, especially if you saw it on teevee.

To: Lane3 who wrote (17082)	4/25/2006 11:31:48 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541336

a CBS News "60 Minutes" reporter recently compared skeptics of "global warming" to Holocaust deniers.<< More nonsense. The Holocaust is part of history. Global warming is in the future. Skepticism about the historical record is, er, a bit different from skepticism about predictions in the far future. The kind of proof that you want to prove global warming does not make any sense. It would be like if you were a Jew living in Berlin looking for proof that a Holocaust was actually taking place before you decide to get out of Berlin. By the time you get that level of proof, it would be too late. Same thing with Global warming. By the time you get the proof that you need, it would be too late. Just look at all the fossil fuel that we are burning. There is no global policy. Anybody and any country can do anything they want. It's like Nancy Grace would say about a young woman stripping in front of 40 young men fueled by alcohol. Nothing good can come from it.