I am not talking to the general audience here, I am talking to one person who claims to have the truth, the absolute truth, nothing but the truth without bringing forth any argument as to where this truth comes from. Just baseless assertions. That is a difference...
Chances are, he pretty much has a good idea what he is talking about. Truth is not important for the denialist spinmeisters. Can't use the truth to argue when you got no data supporting your position, after all. I have given guys like this the benefit of the doubt for years. I am done with that now.
You mean they blackballed one journal that happened to publish a denialist article without it going through review? That journal? The one, where the editors had to resign later, because that's where the TRUE scientific scandal did happen? I won't even argue with the rest of your talking points. They have been thoroughly debunked ages ago. Repeating them is lying. Simple as that.
If there is a single sceptic amongst the deniers, and not another bonehead repeating talking points that have been debunked for years, well, yes, then I will take him serious. There is serious debate about the mechanisms and models of climate change amongst the scientists involved, you know. Ever had a glimpse into the literature? Just a tiny review article or two?
I guess we end that debate here. Your delusions are beyond repair. Enjoy your paranoia. Oh, and on occasion, think about who is really heisting the wealth of the middle class.
The science of global warming is not carried by the CRU alone, nor is it by Al Gore, to avoid this strawman. That "revelation" of the "climategate" mails, you get that also by anal extraction? All I see there is some people getting pissed of by the low quality of the review process of a second rate journal and talking in their jargon for the rest of it. And the "thousands of scientists" dwell in the same place where you got your other talking points from? Show me those scientists. And I mean people competent in the field not weathermen like that lying scumbag Watts.
And your scientific reason for that statement is... anal extraction? The big bad global climate conspiracy, made up of tens of thousands of scientists is out for you too? Better stay in your basement then. They are SCARY.
I am pretty much tired of this discussion. The evidence supporting evolution is laid down in decades worth of scientific journals filled with articles on every detail. First we constructed the interrelationship of species by anatomical means. Later we learned to read genetic codes and protein sequences. And guess what - the relationships derived from those are nearly identical to the earlier though. What stronger evidence do you need? Well, you are entitled to your believes of course, but reality exists separately from those.
If you understand evolution to mean that you, personally, have been an amoeba at some time, you are so far out that I don't know what to tell you here. Please, read up on the subject before making comments. Besides, every scientific theory is unproven. the thing about evolution is that it is unfalsified despite of decades of people trying hard.
Well, "Climategate" gave ammo for global warming deniers within their own echo chamber. The whole shit was made up from out-of-context quotes making up about 1 ppm of the stolen mails they scanned for it. Nothing a rational man would consider harmful. That's playing in a completely different league than the piltdown man, which was made up from beginning to end.
You know, some people are actually interested in research, not in current market value. Just because you are insofar typical for the main population that you don't give a fuck about anything beyond your very tiny horizon doesn't mean that people working on alternatives qualify as "clowns". You, on the other hand, would - if only you were funny and not just pathetic.
Well, true - after going through 2 or 3 chemistry sets, I found a supplier for good lab glassware and chemicals and build quite a serious home lab as a kid. Ended up studying biochemistry after that. On the other hand, after getting serious experience in labwork and safety procedures, I shudder when I think back at some stuff I did as a kid. In some cases, I have just been plain lucky....
That would not be liquid chlorine, that would be a solution of sodium hypochlorite, which dissociates and has a few % of dissolved elemental chlorine in it. Liquid chlorine is nothing you want to have around, trust me.
IAA(bio)C - and I read the IUPAC nomenclature. You are correct that it is to be viewed as hydride by IUPAC standards. Therefor - Oxidane, as in Borane, Silane, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but then again, we just took down a boss - perhaps there is one in the loot.
+5 Adamantine Returning Bullet of Greater Terrorist Bane. Problem solved. Jesus, look in the rulebooks every now and then...
Oh? One has information that no one else in the whole world has? Or is one just engaging in America first! RAH! RAH! BOEING! RAH! RAH! trolling?
I am not talking to the general audience here, I am talking to one person who claims to have the truth, the absolute truth, nothing but the truth without bringing forth any argument as to where this truth comes from. Just baseless assertions. That is a difference...
Chances are, he pretty much has a good idea what he is talking about. Truth is not important for the denialist spinmeisters. Can't use the truth to argue when you got no data supporting your position, after all. I have given guys like this the benefit of the doubt for years. I am done with that now.
You mean they blackballed one journal that happened to publish a denialist article without it going through review? That journal? The one, where the editors had to resign later, because that's where the TRUE scientific scandal did happen? I won't even argue with the rest of your talking points. They have been thoroughly debunked ages ago. Repeating them is lying. Simple as that.
If there is a single sceptic amongst the deniers, and not another bonehead repeating talking points that have been debunked for years, well, yes, then I will take him serious. There is serious debate about the mechanisms and models of climate change amongst the scientists involved, you know. Ever had a glimpse into the literature? Just a tiny review article or two?
True. Declaring it, and by proxy climate science as a whole, a hoax, is just another part of that ploy.
Aye. And they have modpoints to spare, obviously.
I guess we end that debate here. Your delusions are beyond repair. Enjoy your paranoia. Oh, and on occasion, think about who is really heisting the wealth of the middle class.
We rightfully call this kind of people "deniers" or "denialists". They may foam at the mouth as much as they like, that is what they are.
The science of global warming is not carried by the CRU alone, nor is it by Al Gore, to avoid this strawman. That "revelation" of the "climategate" mails, you get that also by anal extraction? All I see there is some people getting pissed of by the low quality of the review process of a second rate journal and talking in their jargon for the rest of it. And the "thousands of scientists" dwell in the same place where you got your other talking points from? Show me those scientists. And I mean people competent in the field not weathermen like that lying scumbag Watts.
And your scientific reason for that statement is... anal extraction? The big bad global climate conspiracy, made up of tens of thousands of scientists is out for you too? Better stay in your basement then. They are SCARY.
That's referring to the piltdown man - a forged prehistoric skull.
I am pretty much tired of this discussion. The evidence supporting evolution is laid down in decades worth of scientific journals filled with articles on every detail. First we constructed the interrelationship of species by anatomical means. Later we learned to read genetic codes and protein sequences. And guess what - the relationships derived from those are nearly identical to the earlier though. What stronger evidence do you need? Well, you are entitled to your believes of course, but reality exists separately from those.
If you understand evolution to mean that you, personally, have been an amoeba at some time, you are so far out that I don't know what to tell you here. Please, read up on the subject before making comments. Besides, every scientific theory is unproven. the thing about evolution is that it is unfalsified despite of decades of people trying hard.
Well, "Climategate" gave ammo for global warming deniers within their own echo chamber. The whole shit was made up from out-of-context quotes making up about 1 ppm of the stolen mails they scanned for it. Nothing a rational man would consider harmful. That's playing in a completely different league than the piltdown man, which was made up from beginning to end.
Yes, like the IUPAC name for CH4 is carbane. Oh, crap, it isn't.
Oh, Mr. Anonymous Chemist?
You know, some people are actually interested in research, not in current market value. Just because you are insofar typical for the main population that you don't give a fuck about anything beyond your very tiny horizon doesn't mean that people working on alternatives qualify as "clowns". You, on the other hand, would - if only you were funny and not just pathetic.
Are you whining about the abysmal thermal efficiency of nuclear plants, too?
Inasmuch as an apple is about the same as a typical orange, yes.
Well, true - after going through 2 or 3 chemistry sets, I found a supplier for good lab glassware and chemicals and build quite a serious home lab as a kid. Ended up studying biochemistry after that. On the other hand, after getting serious experience in labwork and safety procedures, I shudder when I think back at some stuff I did as a kid. In some cases, I have just been plain lucky....
That would not be liquid chlorine, that would be a solution of sodium hypochlorite, which dissociates and has a few % of dissolved elemental chlorine in it. Liquid chlorine is nothing you want to have around, trust me.
That's in line with my anorganics prof, who defined chemistry as "everything a chemist is interested in".
IAA(bio)C - and I read the IUPAC nomenclature. You are correct that it is to be viewed as hydride by IUPAC standards. Therefor - Oxidane, as in Borane, Silane, and so on.