And on what do you base your suspicion? You have a large number of experts in fields related to climate and thermodynamics who appear to disagree with you, so please provide a citation to any study that actually backs up your claim. Otherwise, you're just another random guy on the Internet with an inflated ego and no real knowledge of the fields in question making grand claims.
This demonstrates an observation I've made a few times, that deniers believe they need only concoct an objection. The objection doesn't need to be valid, it doesn't even need to make sense, it merely needs to be stated. In their view, even the most idiotic objection amounts to a total destruction of a scientific theory they don't like.
There would be climatologists whether AGW was happening or not. And who has more to lose at this point, a few thousand researchers, or large international corporations? You have literally concocted the dumbest conspiracy theory in history, and for what, because you're too much a coward or too selfish?
Grow the fuck up, moron. The Universe doesn't care about your stock fucking portfolio or how much it costs to gas up your fucking car. CO2's properties have been known for over a century, and concocting conspiracy theories to make yourself feel better is irrelevant to the laws of fucking physics.
Do you understand that CO2 in the atmosphere traps energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere? And why do you think plants have some infinite capacity to absorb it?
In fact the biggest overall absorber of CO2 to date is the oceans, and what that is doing is altering the oceans' pH. So not only do you have heating, you have overall changes in ocean chemistry.
But I get it, you're just a mindless meme machine. You know nothing, and don't want to, so you just repeat memes you've read.
AGW is beneficial for some people for a little while, but in the long run it's very damned bad. And you think scientists are so fucking stupid they don't track other climate elements in their models?
I can't tell whether you are being arrogant, or moronic, but this looks like a classic example of "Hi, I'm a random nobody on the Internet, and all those scientists never thought of this one..."
Care to cite that, please? In general, temperatures have been trending upward for quite some time now, so I'm suspecting you're just another moron citing some denier meme you read somewhere.
Putting all your attention on pollution and none on man-made climate change is like worrying about too much salt in your diet while someone is lighting your hair on fire.
I think most conservatives don't give a flying fuck about the environment. They certainly don't care about their children's environment, quite happy to allow CO2 to be endless puked into the atmosphere, and deny the impacts, or simply shrug and go "Well, we'll have to learn to live with it."
Conservatism has become a particularly toxic breed of anti-intellectualism, and nothing demonstrates this better than the popularity of science denial that goes on in Conservative circles.
When Twitter through Milo Yiannopoulos out for leading a Twitter campaign against Leslie Jones, right up to and including faking Jones' posts, there was all kinds of declarations that Twitter would die. But I think the Milo types are in fact in the minority, and even if they left, there would be little material damage to Twitter, beyond the fact that its model doesn't really have a clear path to long-term sustainability at all. But it's hard to imagine how it will improve if it becomes known as the place really awful people come to harass other people and spread venom and hatred.
The problem being that some of those sources aren't "news" at all. I'm not saying the mainstream outlets are perfect, but there is vetting, even if it is imperfect in application. What sort of vetting do you imagine some of these fake news pages and even sites like Breitbarts do?
Some users are pressuring them. But Twitter has come to the point where they know that if they cannot toss out the hate-mongers and trolls, they're likely to lose a large portion of their user base. Frankly, getting rid of the hate spreaders will help Twitter, not harm it. And then all the haters can go found their own web site, like the White Supremacists did, but then again, since no one is forced to read Storm Front's vile crap, I guess that's the fear, that the hate mongers will simply run out of oxygen.
There are North Dakotans that are rapists, perhaps North Dakotans should be banned from leaving their state.
But this is what Trump supporters do almost automatically, simply translate absurd statements in such a way as to make them make sense. "Ah well, he didn't mean it that way!"
It's like Thiel talking about the wall. "Oh well, nobody took it seriously. It wasn't a literal wall." Except, of course, a lot of people do think Trump is going to build a big concrete wall along the Mexican border, despite the fact that anyone with any sense at all knows there is no way Congress would ever fund such a thing. So suddenly the wall becomes a fence, of which there already is lots of.
Most of what Trump promised isn't going to happen, or if it does, in a much tamer way. Look at his commitment to get rid of Obamacare. Well guess what, chunks of it will still exist, and it's largely the nature of funding it that will change, though even there, so few details are given that it is hard to assess what the new health care program may look like.
Even his commitment to put an anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court probably isn't going to lead to an end to Roe v Wade, but all the social conservatives lap it up.
It can't be half as violent and neo-Stalinist as some AC who goes around using "sand n n****r"? You seem like the type that would have be a good Brown Shirt back in the day, fully of hate and looking to let the world know it.
Open exchange of ideas is one thing, and certainly I do read even publications and sites that I have philosophical or ideological disagreements with. But some of what has gone on on social media in the last few years cannot in any way be described as open debate, it's out and out threats, harassment, and really what I can only describe as toxic speech. I agree there is some risk that people will use such tools to create echo chambers, but ultimately there are already echo chambers out there, and have been since the earliest days of the Internet. I remember being on a Usenet group in the early 1990s that decided to become a moderated group because of trolls and endless flamewars, and this was brought up then. But I have seen online forums simply die because the most strident members were allowed free reign, and the moderators only started to reign them in when it was too late, and most of the other contributors had simply left.
There's a balancing act here, I'll agree, but the alternative, to simply let the most vulgar posters chase away more reasonable voices would be a death spiral.
I would feel exactly the same whoever it is. I've worked with web forum software that allowed users to block certain other posters, and even Slashdot allows that to some extent if you decide to read only at certain moderation levels.
It sounds to me like some people are upset because they've relied on unmoderated services to basically allow them to harangue all and asunder, and they're being very cranky now that Twitter is finally instituting what so many other online services have. It's hard to be a bully and a troll when people can shut you off.
You want a site where you can harass and troll without constraint, go somewhere else or start your own. I have a feeling that if Twitter gets rid of its nastier types, it will probably do a lot better than if it allows its worst elements to run rough shod over everyone else.
Twitter is a private service. If it wishes to offer its users the tools to block certain messages, then that's between said users and Twitter. It sounds optional, so what's the big deal?
I think the alt-right and the alt-left are both a pack of delusional morons. This is the source of fake news; if you write it, no matter how absurd, there's some fucking retard partisan who will lap it up.
Slashdot Mirror
It's so hard being a Nazi now a days, for some reason everyone seems to think your a vile repugnant monster.
And on what do you base your suspicion? You have a large number of experts in fields related to climate and thermodynamics who appear to disagree with you, so please provide a citation to any study that actually backs up your claim. Otherwise, you're just another random guy on the Internet with an inflated ego and no real knowledge of the fields in question making grand claims.
This demonstrates an observation I've made a few times, that deniers believe they need only concoct an objection. The objection doesn't need to be valid, it doesn't even need to make sense, it merely needs to be stated. In their view, even the most idiotic objection amounts to a total destruction of a scientific theory they don't like.
I'm nasty to idiots who just mindlessly repeat memes.
There would be climatologists whether AGW was happening or not. And who has more to lose at this point, a few thousand researchers, or large international corporations? You have literally concocted the dumbest conspiracy theory in history, and for what, because you're too much a coward or too selfish?
Grow the fuck up, moron. The Universe doesn't care about your stock fucking portfolio or how much it costs to gas up your fucking car. CO2's properties have been known for over a century, and concocting conspiracy theories to make yourself feel better is irrelevant to the laws of fucking physics.
Jesus Christ, grow the fuck up.
Do you understand that CO2 in the atmosphere traps energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere? And why do you think plants have some infinite capacity to absorb it?
In fact the biggest overall absorber of CO2 to date is the oceans, and what that is doing is altering the oceans' pH. So not only do you have heating, you have overall changes in ocean chemistry.
But I get it, you're just a mindless meme machine. You know nothing, and don't want to, so you just repeat memes you've read.
AGW is beneficial for some people for a little while, but in the long run it's very damned bad. And you think scientists are so fucking stupid they don't track other climate elements in their models?
I can't tell whether you are being arrogant, or moronic, but this looks like a classic example of "Hi, I'm a random nobody on the Internet, and all those scientists never thought of this one..."
Care to cite that, please? In general, temperatures have been trending upward for quite some time now, so I'm suspecting you're just another moron citing some denier meme you read somewhere.
And once again, for the deniers and their followers, weather != climate.,
Putting all your attention on pollution and none on man-made climate change is like worrying about too much salt in your diet while someone is lighting your hair on fire.
I think most conservatives don't give a flying fuck about the environment. They certainly don't care about their children's environment, quite happy to allow CO2 to be endless puked into the atmosphere, and deny the impacts, or simply shrug and go "Well, we'll have to learn to live with it."
Conservatism has become a particularly toxic breed of anti-intellectualism, and nothing demonstrates this better than the popularity of science denial that goes on in Conservative circles.
So basically when all is said and done, voters re-elected George W. Bush. For chrissakes, there's a rumor that John Bolton may be coming back.
So now we're down to defending Trump by saying "Well, Hillary would have done it..."
When Twitter through Milo Yiannopoulos out for leading a Twitter campaign against Leslie Jones, right up to and including faking Jones' posts, there was all kinds of declarations that Twitter would die. But I think the Milo types are in fact in the minority, and even if they left, there would be little material damage to Twitter, beyond the fact that its model doesn't really have a clear path to long-term sustainability at all. But it's hard to imagine how it will improve if it becomes known as the place really awful people come to harass other people and spread venom and hatred.
The problem being that some of those sources aren't "news" at all. I'm not saying the mainstream outlets are perfect, but there is vetting, even if it is imperfect in application. What sort of vetting do you imagine some of these fake news pages and even sites like Breitbarts do?
Some users are pressuring them. But Twitter has come to the point where they know that if they cannot toss out the hate-mongers and trolls, they're likely to lose a large portion of their user base. Frankly, getting rid of the hate spreaders will help Twitter, not harm it. And then all the haters can go found their own web site, like the White Supremacists did, but then again, since no one is forced to read Storm Front's vile crap, I guess that's the fear, that the hate mongers will simply run out of oxygen.
There are North Dakotans that are rapists, perhaps North Dakotans should be banned from leaving their state.
But this is what Trump supporters do almost automatically, simply translate absurd statements in such a way as to make them make sense. "Ah well, he didn't mean it that way!"
It's like Thiel talking about the wall. "Oh well, nobody took it seriously. It wasn't a literal wall." Except, of course, a lot of people do think Trump is going to build a big concrete wall along the Mexican border, despite the fact that anyone with any sense at all knows there is no way Congress would ever fund such a thing. So suddenly the wall becomes a fence, of which there already is lots of.
Most of what Trump promised isn't going to happen, or if it does, in a much tamer way. Look at his commitment to get rid of Obamacare. Well guess what, chunks of it will still exist, and it's largely the nature of funding it that will change, though even there, so few details are given that it is hard to assess what the new health care program may look like.
Even his commitment to put an anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court probably isn't going to lead to an end to Roe v Wade, but all the social conservatives lap it up.
Exactly. Parliament had every right to expect that the Colonies should pay for the huge costs of defending them during the French and Indian Wars.
It's not likely there would even be a United States today if Britain had lost control of large portions of its North American colonies.
It can't be half as violent and neo-Stalinist as some AC who goes around using "sand n n****r"? You seem like the type that would have be a good Brown Shirt back in the day, fully of hate and looking to let the world know it.
Open exchange of ideas is one thing, and certainly I do read even publications and sites that I have philosophical or ideological disagreements with. But some of what has gone on on social media in the last few years cannot in any way be described as open debate, it's out and out threats, harassment, and really what I can only describe as toxic speech. I agree there is some risk that people will use such tools to create echo chambers, but ultimately there are already echo chambers out there, and have been since the earliest days of the Internet. I remember being on a Usenet group in the early 1990s that decided to become a moderated group because of trolls and endless flamewars, and this was brought up then. But I have seen online forums simply die because the most strident members were allowed free reign, and the moderators only started to reign them in when it was too late, and most of the other contributors had simply left.
There's a balancing act here, I'll agree, but the alternative, to simply let the most vulgar posters chase away more reasonable voices would be a death spiral.
I would feel exactly the same whoever it is. I've worked with web forum software that allowed users to block certain other posters, and even Slashdot allows that to some extent if you decide to read only at certain moderation levels.
It sounds to me like some people are upset because they've relied on unmoderated services to basically allow them to harangue all and asunder, and they're being very cranky now that Twitter is finally instituting what so many other online services have. It's hard to be a bully and a troll when people can shut you off.
You want a site where you can harass and troll without constraint, go somewhere else or start your own. I have a feeling that if Twitter gets rid of its nastier types, it will probably do a lot better than if it allows its worst elements to run rough shod over everyone else.
Twitter is a private service. If it wishes to offer its users the tools to block certain messages, then that's between said users and Twitter. It sounds optional, so what's the big deal?
I'm the guy that doesn't suffered paranoid delusions and imagines every dark corner contains someone trying to fuck me over.
I think the alt-right and the alt-left are both a pack of delusional morons. This is the source of fake news; if you write it, no matter how absurd, there's some fucking retard partisan who will lap it up.