Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.

Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed

posted by martyb on Wednesday October 19 2016, @01:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the freedom-of-the-press dept.

butthurt writes:

Amy Goodman, host of the New York City-based leftist news programme Democracy Now! was charged with criminal trespass by the North Dakota state's attorney (prosecutor). The charge was changed to riot, then was dismissed due to lack of evidence when Goodman appeared in court on Monday. The charges stemmed from her presence at a protest in September against construction of the Dakota Access (Bakken) oil pipeline, after the protest was reported on her show.

Coverage:

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 92 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 22 2016, @02:40PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 22 2016, @02:40PM (#417578) Journal

    Your hypothesis "explains" the Dobson unit measurements by supposing there are longer-term oscillations; it doesn't explain what would cause oscillations on a longer time scale.

    We do know there are such variations in both climate and solar output and both are relevant (though climate related effects matter significantly more) to ozone production over the Antarctic. In particular, we know that the ozone hole is due in large part [wikipedia.org] to isolation of the upper atmosphere due to polar vortex and high altitude cloud formation prior to the beginning of the Southern hemisphere spring (and return of sunlight to the Antarctic).

    It's all right to have just one hypothesis; the alternative of acknowledging our ignorance is always available.

    Sure, it is when the consequences of the hypothesis being more or less correct can be ignored. A key problem here is that global policy on refrigerants has been decided on the basis of a certain chemistry model of the stratosphere. But if natural variation is being ignored, then it indicates that the model's estimates of, for example ozone generation and depletion as well as the life span and effects of chlorine in the stratosphere can be very wrong, resulting in policy affected billions of people being based on bad models and data.