QuoteSo go out, everybody!!! Smoke, drink, fuck...or sit on your computer and do nothing. It doesn't matter.oh, fuck off I'd rather blame you all than surrender to self-indulgence.but anyway Holland will be mine before 2012. that will be fun. Welcome Aquarius!navetsea said, October 29, 2009, 05:46:13 amjust before you are frozen to deathmake sure to strike a cool pose like thishttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/3157397958_47fa815814.jpg?v=0and not like thishttp://trickyourblog.com/uploads/user_8/han-solo-frozen-in-carbonite_3.jpgalso, navets for moderator.
Shamrock, the Hard Mod said, October 31, 2009, 07:20:35 pmQuoteScience and statistics can be manipulated to serve a particular agenda.While I think that discarding all scientific and statistical studies as 'evil empire's agenda' is really stupid, I also think that results can be twisted (if not completely made up, sometimes).The scene regarding the cause for global warming (because global warming is an easy-to-check reality) is quite complex, with a ton of studies that back up one side and a ton of studies on the other one. This kind of situation is the hardest, when the scientific community is split, and there is a lot of money and power at stake. So far, I just don't trust anything said unless I can see the whole study, sample, method, etc.
Shamrock, you didn't understand my point.The nazis also used 'science' to prove the overwhelming superiority of the Arian race.Science and pseudo-Science are very different things. I support one, but not the other. The example you gave with your car is preposterous. If the coefficient of friction is insufficient, of course the car will roll down. When did I say otherwise? Yet global warming is incredibly complex.So complex in fact, the scientists are making many different assumptions about the matter. It is those assumptions which are sometimes hyped as fact, or as the most 'logical' by the ones who have money and an agenda.Yet if you understand the properties of water vapor Shamrock, then be my guest and create a more accurate weather model that takes into account solar activity, co2 emissions, etc.Science is also full of bias. Some methods are very flawed, and some Scientific reports deliberately mislead the population. For instance, some of the reports about global warming gives one the impression that all of the big names there agree with each other, when in fact many of them disagree with one another...yet outside of their little blurb the report is written in such a way as to seem that it is the unanimous scientific opinion that all scientists who contributed agree to its ultimate conclusion.Furthermore, when some scientists are given funding and others not based on their connections, or when the overall bias in the scientific community is to generate 'shock', then I very much question its integrity on some issues. If a study came out that said, 'Global Warming is a Farce', then who would give a crap? The media wouldn't touch it, many people wouldn't read it, and the funding would die off. But if the opposite happens, CNN makes money, they get funding, and perhaps even make connections between the two that pollutes scientific integrity. In such a case it is no longer science, it's propaganda.
You are seeing conspiracy where this is not one. There were also scientist that said the world was flat at one time. Global warming is true. The only moronic argument about it is, is caused by man. Some people say we are to small to have that much of an impact. People don't know how much of impact we have had already.Cows and corn are not even natural sources of food. We created both of them through selective breeding. Even our farmed version of wheat isn't the same as wild wheat. Dogs were the first thing we domesticated. You wouldn't see any fucking poodles in the wild. We have changed the landscape and nature for about 4000 years or more.Since we started industrialism the world has gotten hotter by a rate faster than we have previously seen in history and the geological record. So the planet has gotten hotter in the last 100 years, faster than it ever has before. A good theory would be man has increased this rate. So you test this theory. So far the theory still stands. Just like the theory of gravity still stands. Does that mean that there is gravity or global warming? No, it is not guaranteed. I mean there was a long moment where we shot people around the moon and everyone at nasa was thinking, "Shit I hope I we were right about the theory of gravity." Theories are very powerful things. We flew into space based on theories. Until someone discovers that the invisible man turned our space craft around then the theory of gravity will have to hold.It is the same with global warming. Until we find a better theory that is both testable and hasn't been proven false, then the theory stands. You guys and your conspiracy theories need to ask a simple question. What would be the point? Where is the profit in bullshitting us? Why can't people look at the data themselves instead of talking about how 50 years ago Hitler did this and that. The fucking data is there just look at it and use your brain, it isn't difficult.
Viscount said, November 01, 2009, 07:12:14 pmScience and pseudo-Science are very different things. I support one, but not the other.Why don't you do some research to back up your points? Please enlighten us.You seem pretty well educated. Viscount said, October 31, 2009, 04:38:55 amThis planet has been around for millions of yearsOpps. I think I take that back. Viscount said, November 01, 2009, 07:12:14 pmIf a study came out that said, 'Global Warming is a Farce', then who would give a crap? The media wouldn't touch it, many people wouldn't read it, and the funding would die off.Also, the reason why I posted this is because of how much news I've been seeing about global warming being over.
Dr. House said, November 01, 2009, 10:08:55 pmViscount said, October 31, 2009, 04:38:55 amThis planet has been around for millions of yearsOpps. I think I take that back. Erm, why? The planet has been around for millions of years. Around 4.500 million years. Shamrock, the Hard Mod said, November 01, 2009, 09:41:08 pmWhere is the profit in bullshitting us?Sham, don't tell me you are naive enough to discard the notion that while science attempts to find an objective truth and eventually finds it, there is a lot of pressure to find results suiting the powers that be. The work of Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Pierre Bourdieu (among others) on the subject of sociology of science is more than interesting, and one of the areas I've always been interested in.Many reasonable experts still discuss the idea that global warming is caused by man, and both sides have reasonable arguments (theories and experiments) to back it up. I just decided not to make up my mind yet, considering the community is split on this one.
The community is not split. Find me a college book with a split. In fact find me a scientist that has data saying that we are not the cause of the increase in temperature for the last one hundred years.
As I said before,Lasombra Demon said, October 31, 2009, 09:06:00 pmThe scene regarding the cause for global warming (because global warming is an easy-to-check reality) is quite complex, with a ton of studies that back up one side and a ton of studies on the other one. This kind of situation is the hardest, when the scientific community is split, and there is a lot of money and power at stake. So far, I just don't trust anything said unless I can see the whole study, sample, method, etc.I've never ever doubted global warming. The community is still split regarding the causes, though.
So you can't find one. And the cause is natural and man. We are coming out of an Ice age. It has been happening since we first left Africa and even before then.That isn't a split. That is two different subjects. One is the ending of an Iceage, the other is the contribution of man to global warming. There is no split. We know the causes of it and we know why it is increasing.
Wha...?Okay, lemme dig some names up.I just really don't think there is as much consensus on this one as on other topics, no need to get so defensive.Habibullo Abdussamatov, Nir Shaviv, Niger Calder, and a recent award-winning spanish expert which I can't find now (will get you more data tomorrow, 'k?) all oppose the idea quite vividly. I truly don't have the time to google some more but I do fin the issue to be quite 'hot' at the moment. Having searched, though, it does seem there is a bit more consensus than I thought. Still, the sheer fact that a portion of the scientific community opposes this is alarming enough for me to take a more skeptic standpoint, i.e. I'm not buying any version until I see more.
Lasombra Demon said, November 01, 2009, 11:24:43 pmErm, why? The planet has been around for millions of years. Around 4.500 million years. There are minerals on the Earth that have been dated at 4 BILLION years old, and full rocks that are 3 1/2 BILLION years old.And the rocks that have just been packed and cooked a week ago are the ones you must be smoking.Shamrock, the Hard Mod said, November 02, 2009, 12:20:32 amFind me a college book with a split.I wouldn't use that to further an argument. Nearly all text books say that the Big Bang started the Universe, but there really isn't enough evidence to TRULY rule it as the way to go.College texts favor the "cooler" answers whenever possible.
Dr. House said, November 02, 2009, 02:54:07 amLasombra Demon said, November 01, 2009, 11:24:43 pmErm, why? The planet has been around for millions of years. Around 4.500 million years. There are minerals on the Earth that have been dated at 4 BILLION years old, and full rocks that are 3 1/2 BILLION years old.And the rocks that have just been packed and cooked a week ago are the ones you must be smoking.Fucking lmao...
Hey Dr. House! I see that great progress you've been making...after you learn your numbers, maybe you'll be able to summon the mighty 'alpabit' to help your arguments! Ready House, A, B, C, D...can you say the rest?
House you nullified your entire statement about College Text books and the big bang. I'm laughing my ass off.
Dr. House said, November 02, 2009, 02:54:07 amLasombra Demon said, November 01, 2009, 11:24:43 pmErm, why? The planet has been around for millions of years. Around 4.500 million years. There are minerals on the Earth that have been dated at 4 BILLION years old, and full rocks that are 3 1/2 BILLION years old.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_(number)PS: http://hispanismo.org/ciencia/9192-el-mito-del-cambio-climatico.html (In spanish, sorry)Richard S. Lindzen, Vincent Courtillot, Bjorn Lomborg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augie_Auer ,and Antonio Uriarte's whole blog with a ton of entries (in spanish mostly, sorry; I'll just say the guy has 2 degrees in climatology and geography, and most of his studies DO seem interesting): http://biblioweb.sindominio.net/escepticos/kioto.html, http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/A particular book: Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009. Printed in the United States of America ISBN-13 – 978-1-934791-28-8 ISBN-10 – 1-934791-28-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_skepticismI've even read the term enviromental McCarthism regarding how scientists might be shunned because of their studies.I guess I'm still keeping my position, I don't trust any side.
The world's over populated anyway, this will be good and punish the wicked, hell even the good for not doing enough. Sometimes you just gotta punish everyone, even the innocent.
it is already november and the rainy season is not yet begun here, usually september is the start of rainy season here, and these last few days, the temperature is hot and humid
If it doesn't rain in my town before the 11th, we're going on water rationing. We've had electric shutdowns due to fires, due to dry weather. A couple of days ago, we had a temperature of 40 degrees. It hasn't rained in a LOT of time. And it's rain season.
