He saw a UFO. So have I, so have you. Anything flying you can't identify is a UFO. That is all he claimed, he saw something in the sky that looked weird.
He's a well respected US representative, which is more than you will ever accomplish. He received the Ghandi Peace Award from the Quakers (who know a thing or two about peace.) He helped draft the US National Health Insurance Act. Voted against the Patriot Act. Voted against the Military Commisions Act. One of only six with the balls to vote against the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Advocates withdrawal from NAFTA. Much more I can't think of for now, but basically he has taken a principled stand on all the issues that matter to me.
Repeating lies does not make them true. Point out where you disagree with his policies or shut the fuck up. Saying he's a deranged sad twisted funny looking twit is not political debate. It's childish name calling.
Really? Because I agree with all his policy decisions. What specifically don't you agree with? You still aren't being clear, and simply hoping that branding him a 'touchy-feely leftist' will be enough. Sorry, name calling is not mature political debate. Grow up and say what decisions of his you don't like.
A lot of people here don't respect religion. I do, when it deserves respect.
While I understand your point, I don't think religion can be equated with science, because experience of the divine is a highly personal thing and it is open to individual interpretation.
Scientists have shown that electrically stimulating a certain region of the brain will cause people to have religious experience. Some people, even knowing what the experiment was, still believed that the experience was a real, direct experience of the presence of God.
Who says he's afraid? Perhaps he knew this would be the best way to get it in uninterrupted. Maybe he didn't want it buried in a barrage of republican comments. You don't know.
From the first article:
Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto." From the second:
The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer. From the third:
The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since. You really should read articles you try to use for evidence.
A lot of people feel that this was important. You can claim it wasn't all you like, but it just sounds like sour grapes to me. You may want it to be unimportant, you may feel it should be unimportant, but you don't get to decide what anyone else thinks is important.
I think Dennis Kucinich is the best politician in office today. I think he would make a far better president than anyone running. And I think he did the right thing by reading this into the record.
A lot of people including myself deeply respect Dennis Kucinich. Do you know anything about his accomplishments, or are you just parroting back what the conservative media tells you to say?
Doc has a tendency to go off half cocked in case you hadn't noticed. I still like him though.
Certainty is a feeling. Logic does not produce a feeling of certainty, it is produced by a subconscious process like any other. If one's internal, subconscious mental map is accurate, then that's a good thing. But if not, then you are just jumping to the wrong conclusions more quickly. The important thing is that certainty is not a measure of how well your map agrees with reality. It is a measure of how well a part of your map fits in with the whole.
When I feel certain about something, I examine it carefully. If it still looks right, I put it out there in front of other people. Sometimes a bit forcefully, but I'm still learning how to do this right. I put ideas out there with the hope that if they are incorrect or not useful, I will be proven wrong, but if they are, then others can use them.
I'm trying to be an old school Cynic. Diogenes is a bit of a hero of mine.:)
The scientific method does not provide proof. It simply lets you know how useful a theory is. A theory is useful if it makes accurate predictions in defined circumstances. It does not matter whether reality and theory work the same way, only that the theory makes useful predictions about reality. Divine intervention makes no useful predictions, the theory of natural selection does.
And that is an important point. The theory is natural selection. Evolution is an observation. We've seen it happen. Speciation. Introduction of radical new capabilities. The theory of natural selection provides predictions about how and why this observed process happens.
Saying 'God did it' does not because no one can know the mind of God, God is all powerful, and therefore, He could do anything. Saying God did it is just another way of saying, "Anything can happen and we can't predict it."
So what climate modeling projects are you working for that don't take solar variation into account? I'd like to know but I understand if you can't give names.
You must not have researched this very hard, or even looked carefully at that site, because this is a very well known case of outright fraud that was debunked years ago. People can add their names over the Internet without any fact checking. So how is anyone going to find the person who lied on a website form?
I'm not saying either side is right or wrong but the latter is certainly more tired and less plausible given the constant and obvious drudgery that comes out of those institutions. Would you be willing to do without the products those institutions have and will continue to produce? No? Then shut the fuck up because you are an obvious hypocrite and a liar.
How is asking you to look at a reputable site that already answers the questions raised attacking you? Nothing in my post is attacking you. I AM the GP, you do realize that, right?
I get annoyed at having to refute the same discredited arguments and illusionary evidence again and again and again, excuse me. We can have an intelligent debate once you bring something to the debate that hasn't been thoroughly discredited numerous times. It is honestly like trying to argue with flat earthers.
But please, you like evidence? Then find me some that hasn't been refuted dozens of time or stop whining. I even pointed you to a site that will tell you whether your line of reasoning has been discredited already, but you have nothing. Like all global warming deniers, you aren't interested in the truth, you are interested in getting people to believe your sophistry.
Of course not, because nothing can refute creationism. That's the precise reason it isn't a scientific theory at all. It can't be falsified. There is simply no way to disprove the hypothesis that an all powerful being willed it to happen that way.
Exactly, all that corporate grant money is going to scientists willing to compromise their ideals and claim that global warming is a myth. Oh, that's not what you meant? Because the last time I checked, corporations (who REALLY don't like change) have a lot more money than leftist greenies.
What twisted fantasy world do you live in where scientists saying things unpopular to the people with money and power are getting rich?
Including Edward Teller and other dead scientists? This site has been thoroughly debunked as a fake. Sorry, anyone can claim anything on the Internet. For instance, did you know that eighty bajillion scientists believe in global warming? It's true, and I can show you their signatures, which all look suspiciously like mine, but that's just a coincidence. I also have similar proof that I have had sex with every hot chick on the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
He saw a UFO. So have I, so have you. Anything flying you can't identify is a UFO. That is all he claimed, he saw something in the sky that looked weird.
He's a well respected US representative, which is more than you will ever accomplish. He received the Ghandi Peace Award from the Quakers (who know a thing or two about peace.) He helped draft the US National Health Insurance Act. Voted against the Patriot Act. Voted against the Military Commisions Act. One of only six with the balls to vote against the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Advocates withdrawal from NAFTA. Much more I can't think of for now, but basically he has taken a principled stand on all the issues that matter to me.
Dismissed by who? Got any numbers? The media never took him seriously, but the voting public has voted for him every chance they got.
Repeating lies does not make them true. Point out where you disagree with his policies or shut the fuck up. Saying he's a deranged sad twisted funny looking twit is not political debate. It's childish name calling.
Really? Because I agree with all his policy decisions. What specifically don't you agree with? You still aren't being clear, and simply hoping that branding him a 'touchy-feely leftist' will be enough. Sorry, name calling is not mature political debate. Grow up and say what decisions of his you don't like.
A lot of people here don't respect religion. I do, when it deserves respect.
While I understand your point, I don't think religion can be equated with science, because experience of the divine is a highly personal thing and it is open to individual interpretation.
Scientists have shown that electrically stimulating a certain region of the brain will cause people to have religious experience. Some people, even knowing what the experiment was, still believed that the experience was a real, direct experience of the presence of God.
I'm absolutely serious. Are you? Can you give me a reason for your feelings? Maybe you and your acquaintances are the ones who are out of touch.
Who says he's afraid? Perhaps he knew this would be the best way to get it in uninterrupted. Maybe he didn't want it buried in a barrage of republican comments. You don't know.
Well put. But of course in my case, everyone else isn't biased, they are just wrong. :P
A lot of people feel that this was important. You can claim it wasn't all you like, but it just sounds like sour grapes to me. You may want it to be unimportant, you may feel it should be unimportant, but you don't get to decide what anyone else thinks is important.
I think Dennis Kucinich is the best politician in office today. I think he would make a far better president than anyone running. And I think he did the right thing by reading this into the record.
A lot of people including myself deeply respect Dennis Kucinich. Do you know anything about his accomplishments, or are you just parroting back what the conservative media tells you to say?
Doc has a tendency to go off half cocked in case you hadn't noticed. I still like him though.
:)
Certainty is a feeling. Logic does not produce a feeling of certainty, it is produced by a subconscious process like any other. If one's internal, subconscious mental map is accurate, then that's a good thing. But if not, then you are just jumping to the wrong conclusions more quickly. The important thing is that certainty is not a measure of how well your map agrees with reality. It is a measure of how well a part of your map fits in with the whole.
When I feel certain about something, I examine it carefully. If it still looks right, I put it out there in front of other people. Sometimes a bit forcefully, but I'm still learning how to do this right. I put ideas out there with the hope that if they are incorrect or not useful, I will be proven wrong, but if they are, then others can use them.
I'm trying to be an old school Cynic. Diogenes is a bit of a hero of mine.
The scientific method does not provide proof. It simply lets you know how useful a theory is. A theory is useful if it makes accurate predictions in defined circumstances. It does not matter whether reality and theory work the same way, only that the theory makes useful predictions about reality. Divine intervention makes no useful predictions, the theory of natural selection does.
And that is an important point. The theory is natural selection. Evolution is an observation. We've seen it happen. Speciation. Introduction of radical new capabilities. The theory of natural selection provides predictions about how and why this observed process happens.
Saying 'God did it' does not because no one can know the mind of God, God is all powerful, and therefore, He could do anything. Saying God did it is just another way of saying, "Anything can happen and we can't predict it."
So what climate modeling projects are you working for that don't take solar variation into account? I'd like to know but I understand if you can't give names.
Yes, no climate scientist would EVER have thought of that. I salute your revolutionary brilliance in mentioning that little known piece of data.
You must not have researched this very hard, or even looked carefully at that site, because this is a very well known case of outright fraud that was debunked years ago. People can add their names over the Internet without any fact checking. So how is anyone going to find the person who lied on a website form?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060009
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
Earth IS warming more than the others, where have you heard otherwise?
Why would governments want to support the idea of global warming? What would any government get out of it?
How is asking you to look at a reputable site that already answers the questions raised attacking you? Nothing in my post is attacking you. I AM the GP, you do realize that, right?
I get annoyed at having to refute the same discredited arguments and illusionary evidence again and again and again, excuse me. We can have an intelligent debate once you bring something to the debate that hasn't been thoroughly discredited numerous times. It is honestly like trying to argue with flat earthers.
But please, you like evidence? Then find me some that hasn't been refuted dozens of time or stop whining. I even pointed you to a site that will tell you whether your line of reasoning has been discredited already, but you have nothing. Like all global warming deniers, you aren't interested in the truth, you are interested in getting people to believe your sophistry.
Of course not, because nothing can refute creationism. That's the precise reason it isn't a scientific theory at all. It can't be falsified. There is simply no way to disprove the hypothesis that an all powerful being willed it to happen that way.
Exactly, all that corporate grant money is going to scientists willing to compromise their ideals and claim that global warming is a myth. Oh, that's not what you meant? Because the last time I checked, corporations (who REALLY don't like change) have a lot more money than leftist greenies.
What twisted fantasy world do you live in where scientists saying things unpopular to the people with money and power are getting rich?
Including Edward Teller and other dead scientists? This site has been thoroughly debunked as a fake. Sorry, anyone can claim anything on the Internet. For instance, did you know that eighty bajillion scientists believe in global warming? It's true, and I can show you their signatures, which all look suspiciously like mine, but that's just a coincidence. I also have similar proof that I have had sex with every hot chick on the planet.
And getting first post on Slashdot improves your chances to reproduce how, exactly? No offense, but I think you may be an evolutionary dead end.