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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (692304)	1/11/2013 10:54:29 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575566

What percentage of gun injuries and deaths in the U.S. are from assault rifles? I don't know...but it's the devastating effect of these weapons that's the problem. When there is an attack with one of these the results are usually shocking...that said, banning these weapons and high cap magazines, alone, won't solve the problem. More in required in terms of uniformity of legislation, screening and permitting, controls on private sales, mandated education, and so on. Al

To: SilentZ who wrote (692304)	1/11/2013 11:06:03 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575566

And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do. thedailybeast.com The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

To: SilentZ who wrote (692304)	1/11/2013 2:54:51 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1575566

2012 warmest claim is Stalinist-like propaganda, not fact: NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1) Posted on January 11, 2013by stevengoddard Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the debate over the adjustments misses the bigger picture. “Since we broke the [temperature] record by a full degree Fahrenheit [relative to 1998] this year, the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison,” “I think climate contrarians are doing what by Text-Enhance">Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson — finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It’s like they keep finding new ways to say the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ while ignoring the DNA evidence.” Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data \| Fox News Nothing could be further from the truth. As of 1999, NASA showed that 1934 was more than one degree (Fahrenheit) warmer than 1998, and that 1921, 1931 and 1953 were all warmer than 1998. NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate? *They now show that 1934 is about 0.1C or 0.2F cooler* than 1998. In other words, the total downwards adjustment of 1934 is almost 1.3 by Text-Enhance">degrees Fahrenheit relative to 1998. NASA Fig D.gif (513×438) The current NOAA claim is that 2012 is 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998, but 1934 used to be 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998. This means that prior to adjustment, 1934 was hotter than 2012. The blink comparator below shows the huge changes which have been made to the US temperature record since 1999. The past has been massively cooled, and the present has been massively warmed. A cooling trend has been turned into a warming trend, by adjusting the data. NOAA makes bold press releases based on hugely altered data, and makes no mention that the data is altered. Then when called out, they claim that the adjustments are small, when in fact the adjustments are larger than the trend. The 1930s used to be by far the hottest decade, before the data was adjusted. In engineering, this would be known as a signal to noise ratio of less than 1.0, which would be considered by any legitimate scientist to be almost useless data. James Hansen of NASA wrote this in 1999. Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the by Text-Enhance">country** NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate? The EPA has also published data showing that the 1930s was by far the hottest decade. www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/pdfs/print_heat-waves.pdf Why are NOAA and NASA trying to change the story now? Why don’t they tell us that they are altering the data? Why don’t they tell us that prior to altering the data, thermometers show that 1934 was just as warm as 2012? Even if they believe that their adjustments are legitimate, it is extremely unethical for them to publish press releases which don’t acknowledge that the thermometer data shows no warming in the US. More later. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud-expands-part-1/ credit brumar