What he said in his books was that he was essentially since late childhood, but he was pretty scared of admitting it in public. Atheists have made amazing progress in social acceptability since 1980, and a lot of people who hate on "new atheists" don't understand that people feared for their lives and careers, and couldn't talk in public at all.
Please. Playing ignorant(or willfully disdainful) lip service to the constitution as if it's magical is #2 on standard politician processes, after pandering to the individual groups you are talking to today.
This guy hasn't contributed anything of value in his entire career(seriously zilch), and seems to only have gotten his office on account of the fact that the people of Indian Trail don't actually know what the Constitution Party is.
This guy is "constitution party" which is, essentially, a group of people who think the following: A. The republican party isn't "conservative enough" B. Why haven't we established a theocracy that forbids everything but evangelical Christianity yet? C. B is the true meaning of the constitution.
As with everything ever said by deniers this is triviially proven false with the barest examination of facts.
In 2013 Akademik Shokalskiy was chartered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 to celebrate the centenary of the previous expedition under Douglas Mawson, and to repeat his scientific observations.[14] The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change.[15]
That's multiple goals only some of which are applicable to the category. So, even in the off-topic, completely irrelevant to the accuracy of science discuss, you are unable to be correct.
Uh huh, and you're going to deliver this research now? Piles upon piles of things that aren't slightly offhinged blogs or right leaning editorials of newspapers?
The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change
I was arguing against it being used as "proof". I have to repeat endlessly that I'm aware of idiots who attribute things, and that doesn't justify being wrong about climate change from a scientific perspective. All you have to do is stop being wrong according to staggeringly good data, and then we work on the misunderstandings some people have, but as long as the debate is "it doesn't exist" that's the much wronger position.
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
There's one very very very important factor in that region. It's the gulf stream. It's a major subatlantic current that moderates temperatures in the U.K. in the winter it brings warm water and moisture from the south atlantic. This causes a more moderate winter, with lots of snowfall(compared to similar latitudes elsewhere).
There's a lot research about it but the summary form is that the greater subatlantic currents that drive the gulf stream are dying as a result of climate change, which for the UK in particular means less snow and more cold.
Actually, I bought(I COULD'VE GOTTEN IT FREE?!?!?!?) that on steam, not realizing it was the element engine, and I thought it was better, but not great.
Because that's not what they were there for? That can be done with satellites, and they're more interested in things like ice core data, and plenty of non-climate research.
No, the expeditions to the south pole are primarily(i mean they do do other things too) concerned with ice core data, and looking at very long ago carbon dioxide and temperature variations, which deepen our understanding of the natural component of temperature variation.
No, that's a statistical change in precipitation over time, which is one of the things that does change. That's not the same as going "it's 32C today, therefor we have global warming".
You're still conflating the long-term with the short term, which is the problem with your attitude.
Yeah, I got burned too. I even pre-purchased the collectors edition, dreaming of a competent turn-based fantasy strategy game. I played maybe an hour before I could take no more. What a waste.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not what he meant at all. In context, conscience would be irrelevant.
What he said in his books was that he was essentially since late childhood, but he was pretty scared of admitting it in public. Atheists have made amazing progress in social acceptability since 1980, and a lot of people who hate on "new atheists" don't understand that people feared for their lives and careers, and couldn't talk in public at all.
And some of us will just be stuck on the terrible kerning the ad uses on its font, either way.
Keep in mind Asimov was an avowed atheist, and his description of "spiritual malaise" referred more to human nature, and less to going to church.
Well, it's a contributing factor, but you'll never displace winner take all elections for causes of "2 terrible choices" situations.
Please. Playing ignorant(or willfully disdainful) lip service to the constitution as if it's magical is #2 on standard politician processes, after pandering to the individual groups you are talking to today.
This guy hasn't contributed anything of value in his entire career(seriously zilch), and seems to only have gotten his office on account of the fact that the people of Indian Trail don't actually know what the Constitution Party is.
He's not republican.
This guy is "constitution party" which is, essentially, a group of people who think the following:
A. The republican party isn't "conservative enough"
B. Why haven't we established a theocracy that forbids everything but evangelical Christianity yet?
C. B is the true meaning of the constitution.
As with everything ever said by deniers this is triviially proven false with the barest examination of facts.
In 2013 Akademik Shokalskiy was chartered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 to celebrate the centenary of the previous expedition under Douglas Mawson, and to repeat his scientific observations.[14] The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change.[15]
That's multiple goals only some of which are applicable to the category. So, even in the off-topic, completely irrelevant to the accuracy of science discuss, you are unable to be correct.
Uh huh, and you're going to deliver this research now? Piles upon piles of things that aren't slightly offhinged blogs or right leaning editorials of newspapers?
Well, no. I can see someone disagreeing with me, doing something irrational to attack me, and me still being wrong. That happens.
Yeah, tell me about how they faked the moon landing to spread chem-trails on your JFK assassination plot.
Yeah, me too. I have a relationship that would stand up to a "porn's okay" conversation.
Yes, we don't know that life can evolve since we only have one planet to study that one too: durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Whee, wikipedia shows another one the door:
The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change
I was arguing against it being used as "proof". I have to repeat endlessly that I'm aware of idiots who attribute things, and that doesn't justify being wrong about climate change from a scientific perspective. All you have to do is stop being wrong according to staggeringly good data, and then we work on the misunderstandings some people have, but as long as the debate is "it doesn't exist" that's the much wronger position.
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
Okay, so we're talking British Isles here.
There's one very very very important factor in that region. It's the gulf stream. It's a major subatlantic current that moderates temperatures in the U.K. in the winter it brings warm water and moisture from the south atlantic. This causes a more moderate winter, with lots of snowfall(compared to similar latitudes elsewhere).
There's a lot research about it but the summary form is that the greater subatlantic currents that drive the gulf stream are dying as a result of climate change, which for the UK in particular means less snow and more cold.
Those aren't antithetical statements.
Actually, I bought(I COULD'VE GOTTEN IT FREE?!?!?!?) that on steam, not realizing it was the element engine, and I thought it was better, but not great.
Because that's not what they were there for? That can be done with satellites, and they're more interested in things like ice core data, and plenty of non-climate research.
No, the expeditions to the south pole are primarily(i mean they do do other things too) concerned with ice core data, and looking at very long ago carbon dioxide and temperature variations, which deepen our understanding of the natural component of temperature variation.
No, that's a statistical change in precipitation over time, which is one of the things that does change. That's not the same as going "it's 32C today, therefor we have global warming".
You're still conflating the long-term with the short term, which is the problem with your attitude.
I'm pretty sure reddit is just mostly comprised of uninteresting people repeating the same 5 "jokes" forever on every subreddit.
I guess the NSA is giving us a choice: user friendly or secure, choose one.
Yeah, I got burned too. I even pre-purchased the collectors edition, dreaming of a competent turn-based fantasy strategy game. I played maybe an hour before I could take no more. What a waste.