You do realise when you post things like that you are really telling everyone you get your scientific understanding from blogs and the mass media, right?
Global cooling was publicised in the 70s because it grabbed headlines. The papers in question (a handful) were discredited, misquoted, or misunderstood.
You might as well have written "I am David Govett and I get my scientific understanding from blogs or the mass media! I have no idea what's happening!", as they convey the exact same message.
You can pretend to be interested in evidence, but as all the evidence a sane, honest person needs to understand what's happening is out there, and yet you are arguing against it, it means you are either ignorant, not sane, or not honest. Your choice.
Aaah - you are at best scientifically illiterate, and at worst willing to ignore the single most powerful tool mankind has created in order to feel better about something you'd rather wish was not true. Pick one - both make you look like an abject muppet who cares not for future generations.
You could actually try to learn about this, but then you couldn't blithely reject well-understood science. It's all about why and how the ice is forming and melting.
Future generations will read what you (and others like you) wrote, and will hang their heads in shame.
It strikes me as highly illustrating that you would answer his post with some made-up nonsense. CO2 is clearly a driver, as the most basic experiment shows, as do the decades of research on this matter. The only way you could possibly be right is if the scientific method doesn't work.
Not this oft-debunked nonsense again. Water vapour is short-lived, whereas CO2 stays around for a lot longer. Yes, CO2 is rather rare in the atmosphere, but that has nothing to do with how potent a greenhouse gas it is - heck, without such a small amount of CO2 we'd have no plants. Appealing to ignorance that because the levels of CO2 sound small to laypeople that it mustn't be important is incredibly dishonest. Your argument was purely emotional and not scientific, and contained errors of argument as well...
The temperatures are not unknown in history (well, prehistory - there were no humans around when they were like this before), but the rate of increase in temperature is most certainly unprecedented, and that's the interesting part, as if it increases faster than the natural cycles can handle, we have problems. This isn't rocket science.
We shouldn't get rid of anyone - that's childish, barbaric logic. We should work on getting the deniers to understand what's happening, then we might have a chance at fixing this. As long as they constantly misreport the science and its findings, we don't stand a chance.
Luckily all the questions you've raised have been answered by people far more knowledgeable about this than either of us. They say you're wrong. If you'd actually care about learning, you'd already know this, which makes me think you either don't care or you've made up your mind without even bothering to learn.
You are benefiting from government spending on things like public transport, police, fire, army, schools, etc. even if you never see a train, cop, fireman, soldier or school in your life. Society works because it is full of people. The better these people are at their jobs, the more productive they are and the better society works. If you don't directly benefit from one of these "socialist" schemes, you benefit from others who do. Look further than your own face and you might see that it makes a lot of sense for the government to fund such things, as it means you spend less and get better service. Laugh if you want, but the rest of the world has figured this out, and if you correlate the amount of spending with the quality of life in these places, you might just wake up.
Your car and gas are not paid for because it doesn't help everyone. In sane areas/countries there is a good public transport system to take you where you want to go, so a car with gas is, for most, a luxury.
You sound like a complete selfish tit. You'll probably die alone, complaining about the government, having forgotten to live your life because of your selfish anger, lacklustre logic, and sense of entitlement.
The fingerprints don't exist - the devices store a one-way hash of the fingerprint. Kids should get used to biometrics as they are a part of the future. It sounds like your real problem is with the authorities misusing data as opposed to the data itself, which is a problem which should be fixed, but not by simply tying the hands of the authorities, which only serves to perpetuate abuses and never actually solves a thing.
It's because if some weirdo got in the school the parents would sue the school district into submission. With the guard and the practice in place, they have a scapegoat. That's the thing.
Your whole "submitting to authority" bent makes you sound like this is something frequently on your mind, which might be something you should get checked out. You sound paranoid to fuck.
And when the kid can't remember his PIN and needs to eat lunch? Fingerprints provide the exact same protection as PINs, but it's harder to share or forget your fingerprints.
The lunch ladies' information might not be up to date, so relying on them for that information seems rather silly, considering it's available digitally in its most up-to-date form.
He didn't say killing newborns was a good deed, but that aborting foetuses with Down's Syndrome can (by some) be considered a kindness, due to the suffering inherent in living with Down's.
It doesn't help your argument when you resort to making things up.
Your reading comprehension is ridiculous. Clearly the original author missed some punctuation. The correct way of writing his claim, and the only logical way anyone can honestly interpret it, is as follows:
I don't believe that the universe was created, and is watched over, by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
I don't know who you think you are trying to persuade with your comical interpretation of the position, as anyone with an ounce of honesty will clearly see that you are trying very hard to make a very childish point.
But then you don't really have a reputation of honest discussion, so this isn't really surprising.
There is a difference between killing something because you believe, without evidence, that some supernatural deity will give you something awesome or forgive you something heinous, and evidence-driven anatomical research. If you don't see the difference, or can't bring yourself to admit there is a difference, you don't really have a part to play in this discussion as you are either ignorant or lying.
For your own sake - grow up, please. You are embarrassing yourself and doing a great disservice to your other, less-ridiculous posts, which will now be viewed by many as the output of someone who makes knee-jerk characterisations of countries, lessening their impact, and requiring you to work harder to be listened to.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise when you post things like that you are really telling everyone you get your scientific understanding from blogs and the mass media, right?
Global cooling was publicised in the 70s because it grabbed headlines. The papers in question (a handful) were discredited, misquoted, or misunderstood.
You might as well have written "I am David Govett and I get my scientific understanding from blogs or the mass media! I have no idea what's happening!", as they convey the exact same message.
1 & 2 would mean Evolution isn't a science (as creationists argue against it), and 3 is simply not true.
Either you are right and Evolution is not a science, or Evolution is a science and you are wrong. Your choice!
You can pretend to be interested in evidence, but as all the evidence a sane, honest person needs to understand what's happening is out there, and yet you are arguing against it, it means you are either ignorant, not sane, or not honest. Your choice.
Aaah - you are at best scientifically illiterate, and at worst willing to ignore the single most powerful tool mankind has created in order to feel better about something you'd rather wish was not true. Pick one - both make you look like an abject muppet who cares not for future generations.
You could actually try to learn about this, but then you couldn't blithely reject well-understood science. It's all about why and how the ice is forming and melting.
Future generations will read what you (and others like you) wrote, and will hang their heads in shame.
It strikes me as highly illustrating that you would answer his post with some made-up nonsense. CO2 is clearly a driver, as the most basic experiment shows, as do the decades of research on this matter. The only way you could possibly be right is if the scientific method doesn't work.
Not this oft-debunked nonsense again. Water vapour is short-lived, whereas CO2 stays around for a lot longer. Yes, CO2 is rather rare in the atmosphere, but that has nothing to do with how potent a greenhouse gas it is - heck, without such a small amount of CO2 we'd have no plants. Appealing to ignorance that because the levels of CO2 sound small to laypeople that it mustn't be important is incredibly dishonest. Your argument was purely emotional and not scientific, and contained errors of argument as well...
Luckily you're the only one talking about "energy starvation", so that's a moot point. There are many ways to reduce CO2 without "energy starvation".
The temperatures are not unknown in history (well, prehistory - there were no humans around when they were like this before), but the rate of increase in temperature is most certainly unprecedented, and that's the interesting part, as if it increases faster than the natural cycles can handle, we have problems. This isn't rocket science.
We shouldn't get rid of anyone - that's childish, barbaric logic. We should work on getting the deniers to understand what's happening, then we might have a chance at fixing this. As long as they constantly misreport the science and its findings, we don't stand a chance.
Luckily all the questions you've raised have been answered by people far more knowledgeable about this than either of us. They say you're wrong. If you'd actually care about learning, you'd already know this, which makes me think you either don't care or you've made up your mind without even bothering to learn.
What? An AGW denier misunderstanding something? Never!
You are benefiting from government spending on things like public transport, police, fire, army, schools, etc. even if you never see a train, cop, fireman, soldier or school in your life. Society works because it is full of people. The better these people are at their jobs, the more productive they are and the better society works. If you don't directly benefit from one of these "socialist" schemes, you benefit from others who do. Look further than your own face and you might see that it makes a lot of sense for the government to fund such things, as it means you spend less and get better service. Laugh if you want, but the rest of the world has figured this out, and if you correlate the amount of spending with the quality of life in these places, you might just wake up.
Your car and gas are not paid for because it doesn't help everyone. In sane areas/countries there is a good public transport system to take you where you want to go, so a car with gas is, for most, a luxury.
You sound like a complete selfish tit. You'll probably die alone, complaining about the government, having forgotten to live your life because of your selfish anger, lacklustre logic, and sense of entitlement.
The fingerprints don't exist - the devices store a one-way hash of the fingerprint. Kids should get used to biometrics as they are a part of the future. It sounds like your real problem is with the authorities misusing data as opposed to the data itself, which is a problem which should be fixed, but not by simply tying the hands of the authorities, which only serves to perpetuate abuses and never actually solves a thing.
It's because if some weirdo got in the school the parents would sue the school district into submission. With the guard and the practice in place, they have a scapegoat. That's the thing.
Your whole "submitting to authority" bent makes you sound like this is something frequently on your mind, which might be something you should get checked out. You sound paranoid to fuck.
The 20k figure is for the whole renovation of the dining area, not just the fingerprint scanner.
And when the kid can't remember his PIN and needs to eat lunch? Fingerprints provide the exact same protection as PINs, but it's harder to share or forget your fingerprints. The lunch ladies' information might not be up to date, so relying on them for that information seems rather silly, considering it's available digitally in its most up-to-date form.
You are confusing "science" with "things called science by nutters, devoid of evidence". Don't do that. You look silly.
Would those modern scientific ideas contain AGW, perhaps?
When Atheist Churches are a staple of atheism just as churches are to theists, you'd have a point.
When Atheist Radio stations preach atheism just as theist radio stations do, you'd have a point.
When there is an "atheist community" you'd have a point.
As it is, you are ascribing the qualities of a organised religion to people whose only common quality is that they don't believe in one or more gods.
You sound ridiculous.
He didn't say killing newborns was a good deed, but that aborting foetuses with Down's Syndrome can (by some) be considered a kindness, due to the suffering inherent in living with Down's.
It doesn't help your argument when you resort to making things up.
Your reading comprehension is ridiculous. Clearly the original author missed some punctuation. The correct way of writing his claim, and the only logical way anyone can honestly interpret it, is as follows:
I don't believe that the universe was created, and is watched over, by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
I don't know who you think you are trying to persuade with your comical interpretation of the position, as anyone with an ounce of honesty will clearly see that you are trying very hard to make a very childish point.
But then you don't really have a reputation of honest discussion, so this isn't really surprising.
There is a difference between killing something because you believe, without evidence, that some supernatural deity will give you something awesome or forgive you something heinous, and evidence-driven anatomical research. If you don't see the difference, or can't bring yourself to admit there is a difference, you don't really have a part to play in this discussion as you are either ignorant or lying.
For your own sake - grow up, please. You are embarrassing yourself and doing a great disservice to your other, less-ridiculous posts, which will now be viewed by many as the output of someone who makes knee-jerk characterisations of countries, lessening their impact, and requiring you to work harder to be listened to.
Aaah - this explains it. You don't know what you're talking about. Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to really nail that one.