[quote who="tetleytea" reply="576" id="2486985"] Uh I doubt it. Sure we can beat up on these little pissant countries although we no longer seem to have the balls to actually finish the job. If we're so tough then why don't we take out North Korea. Or how about China? In reality all we are is the schoolyard bully taking the lunch money from 3rd graders whose ass we can kick because we've been left behind a few grades. LOLOLOLOL!!!! &
Yeah, because that's the way we roll here in the U.S., we'll just put any old treaty above the Supreme Law of the Land. Oh wait, turns out we don't . [e digicons]:-"[/e] What the hell is it that conservatives equate cooperating with other countries in pursuit of a mutually beneficial goal with some complete loss of sovreignty. Working for my paycheck != being a slave. Cooperation with other countries != UN
[quote who="Mumblefratz" reply="226" id="2486694"]What is this thread about anyway? There must be at least 3 or 4 separately running conversations.[/quote] It's about Agent of Kharma insisting that if a theory doesn't explicitly invoke the supernatural and hides it behind a curtain then it's a valid argument and if only we were open minded and reasonable we would see that. Which may be a factor in our failing to convince him he's wrong - it might be better to confine our attem
[quote who="MasonM" reply="222" id="2486653"]National Geopgraphic article 2/28/07: Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="201" id="2486172"]Mumble, you seem like someone who would really enjoy reading God's Debris. It's fiction, he admits it's fiction, but it's a damn good read anyway.[/quote] That looks really really interesting - Thanks Jonnan
[quote]Didn't I say someone else could look for it? The link to the wiki article was to point out that there's no mention of geneticists finding the abundant Neanderthal specific DNA, conclusively proving that Neanderthals weren't exterminated, but interbred. A feat supposedly impossible, with no basis for the conclusion, and taught in federally funded state universities...[/quote] I linked to an article that had no mention of the undocumented 'fact' I threw out there, which, if d
[quote]I say that there must be a way to speed up this mystical, magical process that they claim exists. Why not use a supercomputer, or even several and tie them together? Write a computer program to simulate the chemical reactions and interactions that would occur in the aquarium, and run that simulation at full speed. I mean a machine that can do trillions of calculations a second should be able to produce results in a relatively short time (hours, days, weeks, or months), wouldn't you
[quote who="Rick Dykstra" reply="131" id="2484808"] Oh, mostly because creationist apologists have gone to this well too many times - it's the original creationist argument that gets repackaged each time it's debunked, after being applied to RNA, DNA, Amino Acids, and Proteins so far at different times stating that the odds would require lifetimes well over the age of the universe . . . each time an actual experiment has shown the time frame for them to rise naturally was more in the rea
[quote who="psychoak" reply="120" id="2484604"] Ignore Jonnan, he's nursing a sore rectum because he can't admit that the post office loses billions on package shipping. I don't see any corollary between your responses and what language you speak. My being a native english speaking individual doesn't have any bearing on my being an asshole either. You're rude, dismissive, and throw insults while ignoring arguments. Perhaps the argument ignoring is partly due
[quote] First, a glass of water does not stay at 0C until all the ice melts. If it did, the ice would never melt under the surface, major duh here since it melts faster. Aren't you an engineer?[/quote] In the neither here nor there range - uh, yeah actually it does, one of the many weirdnesses about water is that the phase change at 32 degrees absorbs heat. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/watice.html I will concede, it's an esoteric bit
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="527" id="2484536"] The thing is all those peer reviews are not the ultimate bulletproof evidence to me...definitely not on the level of the non flat Earth evidence. I do not want to question the work of people who unlike me are educated in climate science, but when i see other scientists do this, i ask myself: If AGW is 100 percent sure and proven to be happening, why are these people questioning it? Indeed you may claim they have vested interest, are paid by
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="525" id="2484438"]The universal escape clause: No matter what the climate does, it's all easily explained by AGW.[/quote] Wow, it's *almost* as if the climate were a large scale system composed of many interacting components. There might even be positive and negative feedback loops that, despite the rising *average* global temperature, cause climactic extremes to go, in some regions in . . . (Dum dum DUM!!!) the OPPOSITE DIRECTION!!!! Daiwa Barbie say
[quote]Why isn't it obvious to you that mathematical (statistical) odds and probabilities have a lot to do with whether complex machines will arrive through chance?[/quote] Oh, mostly because creationist apologists have gone to this well too many times - it's the original creationist argument that gets repackaged each time it's debunked, after being applied to RNA, DNA, Amino Acids, and Proteins so far at different times stating that the odds would require lifetimes well over the age
[quote who="lifekatana" reply="103" id="2483962"] Quoting psychoak, reply 91Life, maybe you should just admit you're a dick? Blaming it on being a second language is a little far fetched. What? Psychoak is saying I'm a dick? You doubt that I don't speak this language as well as you do?[/quote] Eh, after a certain point pointing out Psychoak's deficiencies as a debater no longer even qualifies as an ad hominem - I think it's the suave way he wipes the f
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="86" id="2483443"] Wait Willy is a creationist too? How about no? In no way can my post be construed as supporting a creationist veiwpoint. In fact, I was using it to argue AGAINST one of the prevailing arguments for ID.[/quote] He misread - I did too, for a moment, and I speak english. Upon scanning it again, I'm not quite sure *why* I misread it but I had to go "No, wait, this is WTMB, I really can't see him being a creationist" and re-re
I am frustrated with people claiming that 1998 is some kind of counterexample that climate change is 'leveling-off'. Seriously - there were claims *IN THE MEDIA*, that 1998 was evidence of global warming. News-Flash: Media Mis-represents Science, Story at 11! Climate change science never tried to represent this as anything but a statistical outlier. To the extent that there is some concern that Global warming may make for stronger/longer-lasting El Nino's (Which are dr
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="493" id="2483198"]So i read the rebuttal of Easterbrook´s work and still same question comes to mind....how do i know whom to believe? For example the part about ocean cycles - PDO...Easterbrook says they are important regarding climate change, this guy - Chris - says it is not true.... My whole point is there are both arguments pro and contra AGW....i really do not know what the truth is and i am not going to make decision about this myself...and
[quote]Evolution has so many problems - philosophical, scientific, rational, probabalistic, mathematical, mechanical, common-sensical, and otherwise - that I quite honestly wouldn't know where to start. I really wouldn't. You could fill a library with critiques on every element of evolution. So rather than me trying to pick one place out of a million possible places to start, why don't you tell me what convinces you to evolution? Give me your best argument, your best evidence, whatever.
They say people have multiple words for describing various specifics of items important to them as a culture, the trope namer being the "Inuit have a dozen names for Snow" . Man, if I could find a place that had a dozen words for Reasonable I'd move there in a heartbeat - [e digicons]:grin:[/e] . Jonnan
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="486" id="2483050"]And what about this graph? It tells something different, but i am sure it was already "debunked". Now only why should i believe those who debunked it and not this Easterbrook guy? They are all scientists after all... Reduced 62%Original 914 x 578[/quote] Ummm - because that's the temperature in Central Greenland, not, say, a Global Record? I mean, it's an important data point, but it's going to be affected by a dozen local issu
In the neither here nor there range - My Personal favorite theory, because it illustrates the scientific method so well, has to be John Dalton's theory of colorblindness . He discovered that it existed, and came up with a theory to explain it, and it's great. His Theory was that colorblindness was the result of the internal liquid in the eye being tinted with the colors you are blind to, like looking through the colored l
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="68" id="2482987"] It onlys ays that evolution has is supported by the scientific community. Duhhh... I already know that evolution is supported by the so-called "scientific" community . It's like, who doesn't know that? But why is that relevant, and why should I care? Are you trying to contruct an appeal to authority?[/quote] Please clarify for me - I am aware of a scientific community, which believes in forming hypothese
Eratosthenes : Proved the world was spherical to within a margin (depending on the size of a 'stadia') 16.3%, or 1% Newton: Of course proved a (Very slightly incorrect) model of gravity.also the light spectrum. Of course, both of those people delivered a theory that made specific, testable predictions, verifiably more accurate than previous theories, and then went out and empirically tested them. Climate-Change skeptics ar
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="64" id="2482894"] Duhhh... this is just so shockingly dumb, I really don't know where to begin. I mean, what's your argument? That some page on Wikipedia summarizes the scientific consensus, with an overview of the theory, evidence, predictions that have ben validated, and mechanisms that have been discovered? That's your argument? [/quote] Fixed that for you - admittedly without the disparage
[quote]http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783[/quote][quote who="Timmaigh" reply="458" id="2481986"] Quoting lifekatana, reply 455Timmaigh this has already been discussed. That study is bull. Ok, but how do you know it is bull, if you are not climate scientist yourself? Just because the scientists, who advocate AGW, "debunked" it? And how do you know their arguments are right? What if their "debunking" of this study is wrong? What i am trying to s
