That's it. The rest of your post is just mindless drivel dressed up in big (and poorly-spelt) words, desperately crafted to make you feel like you're not a complete fool. (Hint: it didn't work).
This is a great example of how religions get started: Ignorance fuels conjecture, which can seem so accurate it gets effortlessly elevated to the status of "probable", and given enough time, will become "truth".
I'm not knocking you, just pointing out that your apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of a various group of things ("star-aligned" cultures, genetics, the history of mankind) has lead you down a strange path...
1. Global warming = the world getting hotter 2. Climate change = the changes to the climate due to the increased amount of energy due to warming 3. The land ice is melting, causing it to flow into the sea, where some of it re-freezes. It is expected if warming occurs. 4. Volcanoes release between 65 and 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Industry releases ~29 billion tonnes per year. So it takes ~19 hours for industry to release as much CO2 as all the volcanoes do per year.
Maybe people will keep "banging the bell" until people like you actually learn what's happening. You suck as a conscientious individual.
The fact they didn't fall down immediately after the planes struck, and all the evidence gathered and analysed by reputable structural engineers and scientists. You know - physics an' such. Or are you claiming it was the wind? Or one of the towers sneezed? Or a suicidal sparrow decided to end it all and kamikaze itself, providing just enough push in the process?
None of it makes any sense security-wise. All we'll end up with (after security is perfect) is some nutter blowing up the check-in area in departures. Then airports as we know cease to exist.
You have to show how it was "set up" so it could report whatever you seem to think it was. That's your job. I merely pointed out that the report didn't claim what you think it does, and that you clearly didn't even bother to read the abstract before getting all upset about it. If the issue is not the study, why did you cite it as an example? You're weird.
If by "assholes" you mean "were found to have done absolutely nothing wrong, yet were still hounded by those seeking to denounce science for some perverse reason", then you are indeed correct.
You're a great example of someone who's so convinced of what they know, even though a cursory 5-minute glance across the relevant publications would reveal otherwise. You are the poster child for scientific mistrust.
Well, no, as the evidence for AGW is based on long-term trends, analysis of the content of the atmosphere, and so on. That is actual science. Screaming "HIATUS!" and running away is clearly not comparable.
The Harvard study claimed no such thing. Their methodology is as follows:
We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as âoemedicalâ based on debtorsâ(TM) stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts
The findings showed that over 92% of all bankruptcies involved medical bills of over $5,000 or 10% of pre-tax income. The results showed a nearly 50% increase in bankruptcies due to medical bills as their survey of 2001, which used precisely the same methodology.
So the real amazing thing is that you know of the study enough to get angry about it, but you never even bothered to read the first paragraph of it. How you expected this to make science look bad (and you good) is staggering. You've just outed yourself as a knee-jerk reactionary who doesn't bother to check their facts, yet is perfectly willing to assume they're correct and condemn some faceless scientists as charlatans.
Yes, but those assholes weren't the scientists, and the scientists in question had a lot more work to do just to get back to where they were before they decided to try to engage more with the public.
They don't need to be in the article to be a very prominent example of people belittling scientists and science itself because their discoveries are troubling to the status quo they rely on... It seems your anti-anti-Fox News fetish is crippling:)
Climatology doesn't deal with periods less than 30 years, so if anyone is proposing that is evidence contrary to AGW they are clearly lying. It's really that simple. Really, really simple. You seem to be the desperate one with the contradicted religion... Weird, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
He likes it, and if he likes it, it must be the best thing around and anyone who says otherwise is a stinky poopyhead.
Atheist = someone who doesn't believe in a god.
That's it. The rest of your post is just mindless drivel dressed up in big (and poorly-spelt) words, desperately crafted to make you feel like you're not a complete fool. (Hint: it didn't work).
This is a great example of how religions get started: Ignorance fuels conjecture, which can seem so accurate it gets effortlessly elevated to the status of "probable", and given enough time, will become "truth".
I'm not knocking you, just pointing out that your apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of a various group of things ("star-aligned" cultures, genetics, the history of mankind) has lead you down a strange path...
There's also another problem - they simply don't exist, so this is kind of like you discussing which is the best Pokémon...
Removing the need or desire to believe in fiction is never tragic.
1. Global warming = the world getting hotter
2. Climate change = the changes to the climate due to the increased amount of energy due to warming
3. The land ice is melting, causing it to flow into the sea, where some of it re-freezes. It is expected if warming occurs.
4. Volcanoes release between 65 and 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Industry releases ~29 billion tonnes per year. So it takes ~19 hours for industry to release as much CO2 as all the volcanoes do per year.
Maybe people will keep "banging the bell" until people like you actually learn what's happening. You suck as a conscientious individual.
How are you having problems with Beta? I saw it once (by choice), dismissed it, and I've not seen it since.
The fact they didn't fall down immediately after the planes struck, and all the evidence gathered and analysed by reputable structural engineers and scientists. You know - physics an' such. Or are you claiming it was the wind? Or one of the towers sneezed? Or a suicidal sparrow decided to end it all and kamikaze itself, providing just enough push in the process?
None of it makes any sense security-wise. All we'll end up with (after security is perfect) is some nutter blowing up the check-in area in departures. Then airports as we know cease to exist.
Or you could just move to civilization and not have to worry about guns...
Because the Republicans would never let "single payer" through, and so they went for the best solution they could feasibly pass.
Unless you can back up your claims with evidence, you should probably stop making a fool of yourself...
You have to show how it was "set up" so it could report whatever you seem to think it was. That's your job. I merely pointed out that the report didn't claim what you think it does, and that you clearly didn't even bother to read the abstract before getting all upset about it. If the issue is not the study, why did you cite it as an example? You're weird.
You are confusing belief with faith, which doesn't surprise me for one so clearly dense.
Or, just maybe, the people who told you that's the case were lying. I trust you read their peer-reviewed criticism, right?
If by "assholes" you mean "were found to have done absolutely nothing wrong, yet were still hounded by those seeking to denounce science for some perverse reason", then you are indeed correct.
You're a great example of someone who's so convinced of what they know, even though a cursory 5-minute glance across the relevant publications would reveal otherwise. You are the poster child for scientific mistrust.
Well, no, as the evidence for AGW is based on long-term trends, analysis of the content of the atmosphere, and so on. That is actual science. Screaming "HIATUS!" and running away is clearly not comparable.
Riiight. Unless you can cite evidence as to why all EU countries can't criticize the US, you're just flapping your gums.
The Harvard study claimed no such thing. Their methodology is as follows:
The findings showed that over 92% of all bankruptcies involved medical bills of over $5,000 or 10% of pre-tax income. The results showed a nearly 50% increase in bankruptcies due to medical bills as their survey of 2001, which used precisely the same methodology.
So the real amazing thing is that you know of the study enough to get angry about it, but you never even bothered to read the first paragraph of it. How you expected this to make science look bad (and you good) is staggering. You've just outed yourself as a knee-jerk reactionary who doesn't bother to check their facts, yet is perfectly willing to assume they're correct and condemn some faceless scientists as charlatans.
If they don't believe the science, then by the very definition they are not scientifically literate.
It seems you are confusing "deciding which steps to take to counter the issue" and "deny the issue exists while keeping on making it worse".
Yes, but those assholes weren't the scientists, and the scientists in question had a lot more work to do just to get back to where they were before they decided to try to engage more with the public.
They don't need to be in the article to be a very prominent example of people belittling scientists and science itself because their discoveries are troubling to the status quo they rely on... It seems your anti-anti-Fox News fetish is crippling :)
Sorry - s/he should have said "the scientifically-literate world".
Climatology doesn't deal with periods less than 30 years, so if anyone is proposing that is evidence contrary to AGW they are clearly lying. It's really that simple. Really, really simple. You seem to be the desperate one with the contradicted religion... Weird, huh?