You'd be absolutely correct, but Scientology doesn't have any evidence, let alone scientific consensus, to back them up. So you're not correct. Not even slightly. Your bias is showing - it's ugly.
Ha! You are so incorrect. As has been pointed out, you're off by nearly 100 years. If you can't even get *that* right, why should anyone believe a word you say? But I guess deniers aren't known for their logical fortitude or accuracy.
Very true. However if you look at the un-cherry-picked data, you see that there is still warming, and all the evidence points to it being mainly due to humanity's CO2 output. Alarmists and deniers can both sod off. AGW is real. Let's not pretend it isn't, or overstate the effects.
There are two things incorrect in your post. First, whether scientific findings are politicised or not doesn't change the merits of the underlying science. Secondly, the evidence has been shown time and time and time again, but some people just don't want to know. You seem to be the real "true believer" as you are believing in something against all the evidence. You are akin to a young-Earth creationist frantically ignoring all the evidence just to keep your precious world-view intact. AGW is real. It's measurable. It's not good for our way of life, business, or society.
You are looking at CO2 and warming as if CO2 is the only factor at play. As it clearly isn't, you are either being dishonest, or know nothing about the field in question. You're also banging on about a warming standstill, which is also nonsensical cherry-picking of data. The rest of your post has (and, indeed, subsequent posts have) now been rendered null and void by your own blathering.
Luckily the science itself doesn't rely on named storms for anything. It stands regardless. If that's the best you can come up with, you have already lost.
As has been pointed out before - hurricanes aren't the only weather, and the US is not the world. You are very well correct, but then so is the claim that there is more extreme weather events. That's clearly going to happen when there's simply more energy in the system. It's pretty basic stuff.
You do realise how slippery your logic is, right? You are espousing the murder of innocents (as many innocents will die through your twisted sense of justice), which many people would think gives "no hope [you'll] be a functioning member of society", and so you should be killed. Idiot.
It's pretty obvious to see why - the most effective form of rehabilitation would take seconds and put the perpetrator back on the streets within the day. Society is so used to prison sentences lasting months/years that it's an entirely alien concept. Clearly identifying, and treating, any mental illness in the convicted would benefit both them and any chance they have of being functioning members of society. Poverty, too. So maybe turning prisons into hospitals would be a better idea. If someone is so seriously messed up that they'd kill a family for no reason, they clearly have something wrong with their heads and need help, not put in a hole and forgotten about.
Which is clearly nonsense, as other countries have the same "Big Pharma", and less-greedy healthcare industries, and they prescribe the same drugs and treatments, albeit sometimes in smaller amounts.
Your point doesn't really make sense. There are countries outside the US who also engage in full-on medical research, and they don't agree with you. Yes, there are natural substances which are great, but when they are discovered to be great, they are made part of what we call "medicine", which is the point that has been plastered all over this thread - natural cures which are shown to work are called "medicine". And people still don't give a damn about your job. It has nothing to do with the conversation, is meaningless in itself, and makes you look like an insecure muppet.
Because you are massively confused, and don't seem to realise it. Which kind of brings everything else you say into doubt, as if you can be so obviously incorrect about this, what else are you wrong about?
If John Doe doesn't get vaccinated, and you do, but your body's not 100% immune to polio (as happens to most people), and the disease travels via John Doe to you, you have definitely been affected by his stupidity. Or if you can't get vaccinated due to a pre-existing condition or circumstance, you have definitely been affected. Thank goodness you told everyone you're a system engineer/architect (senior at that - wow! - that means something!) and not a medical professional, otherwise we might have been confused by your inanity. You should study a bit more before assuming you know everything, wading in and showing everyone your muppetude.
She's a stupid douche because the fewer people who take the vaccine the more likely people are to catch this disease, increasing the number of people who die from it, making it far more deadly than bee stings. You're not very good with this whole "science" thing, are you?
Just because species have not been negatively affected in the past (to your knowledge) doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Imagine if a new set of power lines were installed across the migration paths of some large herbivores - they might affect their migration, and so the health of the groups affected. That means their normal predators (whose numbers have grown large enough to be sustained by that group of herbivores) are now without enough food. They might just start attacking humans. That's pretty extreme, but it's an example of a much worse secondary effect of what otherwise seems like a rather benign primary effect.
No-one's calling this the "next global warming", and you might want to leave your Al Gore bashing out of this so you don't look quite so ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be absolutely correct, but Scientology doesn't have any evidence, let alone scientific consensus, to back them up. So you're not correct. Not even slightly. Your bias is showing - it's ugly.
Or, as the evidence suggests, it is getting warmer.
Ha! You are so incorrect. As has been pointed out, you're off by nearly 100 years. If you can't even get *that* right, why should anyone believe a word you say? But I guess deniers aren't known for their logical fortitude or accuracy.
Very true. However if you look at the un-cherry-picked data, you see that there is still warming, and all the evidence points to it being mainly due to humanity's CO2 output. Alarmists and deniers can both sod off. AGW is real. Let's not pretend it isn't, or overstate the effects.
Decades? Is it 1803 again?
There are two things incorrect in your post. First, whether scientific findings are politicised or not doesn't change the merits of the underlying science. Secondly, the evidence has been shown time and time and time again, but some people just don't want to know. You seem to be the real "true believer" as you are believing in something against all the evidence. You are akin to a young-Earth creationist frantically ignoring all the evidence just to keep your precious world-view intact. AGW is real. It's measurable. It's not good for our way of life, business, or society.
You are looking at CO2 and warming as if CO2 is the only factor at play. As it clearly isn't, you are either being dishonest, or know nothing about the field in question. You're also banging on about a warming standstill, which is also nonsensical cherry-picking of data. The rest of your post has (and, indeed, subsequent posts have) now been rendered null and void by your own blathering.
Luckily the science itself doesn't rely on named storms for anything. It stands regardless. If that's the best you can come up with, you have already lost.
Possibly, but probably not. He was employed as a staff scientist in the "Environmental and Societal Impacts Group".
[citation needed]
As has been pointed out before - hurricanes aren't the only weather, and the US is not the world. You are very well correct, but then so is the claim that there is more extreme weather events. That's clearly going to happen when there's simply more energy in the system. It's pretty basic stuff.
You do realise how slippery your logic is, right? You are espousing the murder of innocents (as many innocents will die through your twisted sense of justice), which many people would think gives "no hope [you'll] be a functioning member of society", and so you should be killed. Idiot.
It's pretty obvious to see why - the most effective form of rehabilitation would take seconds and put the perpetrator back on the streets within the day. Society is so used to prison sentences lasting months/years that it's an entirely alien concept. Clearly identifying, and treating, any mental illness in the convicted would benefit both them and any chance they have of being functioning members of society. Poverty, too. So maybe turning prisons into hospitals would be a better idea. If someone is so seriously messed up that they'd kill a family for no reason, they clearly have something wrong with their heads and need help, not put in a hole and forgotten about.
I'm more disturbed you can't see she's starting a discussion, and not pushing for this punishment.
It's a more "European" alternative because the US's prison system is hell-bent on punishment, not rehabilitation.
Obviously disregarding the things that contradict your point confirms your point. I think you just admitted to everyone you don't have a point at all.
And might not do it again, if it fails to freeze over in winter. You seem to need a clue for yourself.
Sample size of 1, with no control. Your point?
Which is clearly nonsense, as other countries have the same "Big Pharma", and less-greedy healthcare industries, and they prescribe the same drugs and treatments, albeit sometimes in smaller amounts.
Your point doesn't really make sense. There are countries outside the US who also engage in full-on medical research, and they don't agree with you. Yes, there are natural substances which are great, but when they are discovered to be great, they are made part of what we call "medicine", which is the point that has been plastered all over this thread - natural cures which are shown to work are called "medicine". And people still don't give a damn about your job. It has nothing to do with the conversation, is meaningless in itself, and makes you look like an insecure muppet.
Because you are massively confused, and don't seem to realise it. Which kind of brings everything else you say into doubt, as if you can be so obviously incorrect about this, what else are you wrong about?
If John Doe doesn't get vaccinated, and you do, but your body's not 100% immune to polio (as happens to most people), and the disease travels via John Doe to you, you have definitely been affected by his stupidity. Or if you can't get vaccinated due to a pre-existing condition or circumstance, you have definitely been affected. Thank goodness you told everyone you're a system engineer/architect (senior at that - wow! - that means something!) and not a medical professional, otherwise we might have been confused by your inanity. You should study a bit more before assuming you know everything, wading in and showing everyone your muppetude.
"Weigh in".
She's a stupid douche because the fewer people who take the vaccine the more likely people are to catch this disease, increasing the number of people who die from it, making it far more deadly than bee stings. You're not very good with this whole "science" thing, are you?
Just because species have not been negatively affected in the past (to your knowledge) doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Imagine if a new set of power lines were installed across the migration paths of some large herbivores - they might affect their migration, and so the health of the groups affected. That means their normal predators (whose numbers have grown large enough to be sustained by that group of herbivores) are now without enough food. They might just start attacking humans. That's pretty extreme, but it's an example of a much worse secondary effect of what otherwise seems like a rather benign primary effect.
No-one's calling this the "next global warming", and you might want to leave your Al Gore bashing out of this so you don't look quite so ridiculous.