Anyone who votes nice price on this is an asshole.
Explore our other sites
icanneverremembermyburnercode
icanneverremembermyburnercode
2006?! Christ I’m old.
You’re making two very big assumptions. I’m not taking the 10-20% like gospel. It’s the people who use the 97% number as an infallible hammer to squash debate I have a problem with. Also, I have no problem where people get their funding from. Research takes money. I care about the results of the research not who gave…
And that’s totally fine! But to say that it’s settled science and there is no sense in even questioning it is not fine.
You are factually incorrect.
It’s not as easy as saying is there anthropogenic climate or not. First you have to figure out if there is indeed climate change occurring, if so why. Then if man is causing it, what percentage of climate is caused by human factors and by natural changes. The climate models that have been laid out by the “consensus”…
Two things. Number one, consensus is not scientific and means nothing. It’s completely irrelevant. Number two, the 97% consensus number was debunked multiple times and quite quickly at that. Nothing I said was disingenuous. Creating a straw man however, like you just did, is.
Here’s the big issue I have on the climate change debate with both sides. It used to be with science that you changed the hypothesis to fit the data, but with climate change everyone is changing the data to fit the hypothesis. We have people literally going back and changing decades of temperature data after their…
That’s not the way it works though. Anthropogenic climate change is the hypothesis, not the status quo. It is your job to prove the status quo wrong, not the other way around. There is genuine scientific debate on both sides of the aisle. There is legitimate scientific data to support both sides. You’re essentially…
Jerry Lee Lewis will reenact the marriage to his underage cousin and right before he says I do, Anthony Edwards dressed as Goose, will drop an F-14 on his head and say, “watch the canopy”
They probably did give all of that for the right customer but the thing is now, that underwriters can’t see the customer’s name or only last name to prevent discrimination based on gender or race so the underwriter was probably only looking at credit score, reports, and things like that.
My bet is the employee who was using the e-system fucked up and sold the car under the wrong name. After reading up on it more it sounds like this was a mistake and not shady practices.
My last car purchase in October should be titled, The Tale of Two Dealerships. I knew exactly what kind of car I wanted, and called the first dealership in advance to make sure the car was there, then drove over. It took them twenty minutes just to find the car and it wasn’t that big of a lot. She asked if I was…
The Hedgerows.
No.
Do you mean century?
No. No one thinks that. There is not a single economist alive that thinks that.
Don’t ever give investment advice. Ever.
At the capital gains rate.