| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> ~~~~:(
<1> Asriel unless it's just like a lot of other cycles that are caused by the variable sun
<1> then we shouldn't do anything
<0> Aren't we coming out of a small ice age?
<2> vawAFKhome - Well, reducing polution is never a bad thing
<0> Oh wait, I didn't see that on the graph.
<0> So we must not be!
<3> Was 90 here today
<3> (not celsius)
<0> Thank god science can be condessed to a graph.
<2> And the worst case is, we reduce polution and develop alternate energy sources
<2> Doesn't seem like a bad result either way
<0> It actually only got to 95 here today
<4> did anyone see that Katrina storm? Omg that was crazy, it did something to New Orleans that hasn't happend ever!!!
<1> Asriel operative word in your paragraph is "seem"
<0> Floyd, I'd love to discuss that with you, but I think with Asriel here, it would be fruitless.
<0> Ask me some other time.
<2> vawAFKhome - Well, the earth did fine without us pumping crap into it for billions of years
<3> Katrina was nice, she noticed I'm hot
<2> And polution is a *huge* problem, for human health if nothing else
<0> Yeah, vawjr, the earth never warmed or cooled until we came along.
<0> Doesn't pollution help trees breathe?
<2> I'm saying that there is no downside to reducing polution, whilst there are upsides
<0> Carbon dioxide = good for trees
<1> Asriel what evidence do you have that there's no downside?
<0> Hmm, ashe, it's actually not slated to get above 95 in the next five days here
<0> That's weird
<0> Once it hits summer in DFW, that's usually the end of <98 highs until September
<3> Dictionary:
<3> contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
<2> The de-facto position is "no polution". What evidence do you have that polution is a good thing?
<0> This is pleasing to me
<0> I just told you, Asriel, carbon dioxide helps trees.
<0> I mean, that was a joke, but it's absolutely true.
<3> Women spontaneously combust when they see how hot I am
<0> Chance of T-storms
<0> 30% chance of precipitation Chance of T-storms
<0> 30% chance of precipitation
<0> Wheeee
<3> Actuall, men too
<3> Especially Khan
<0> Khan doesn't notice how hot you are, he just notices that you're male and that's enough.
<3> Could be, he said I'm his favorite though, way above all those sheeps
<0> Enough for him to start humping your leg, that is
<4> I don'It's hard for me to turn
<4> ooops
<4> It's hard for me to turn away from what I've seen, and felt about the weather but there are scientist who say that we are coming out of a small ice-age
<2> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 is an interesting link, for the science
<0> Turn away from what you've seen?
<0> What BS.
<0> If you want to talk science, talk science.
<0> Don't talk feelings and touchy feely and fear.
<4> I could feel the weather heating up and see smog...
<0> Fear isn't science.
<0> Well, I can see smog too
<0> All that means is that we don't have enough trees here.
<2> (By the by, but I found that out whilst researching the guy who's article seems to have kicked off this debate. Turns out he's a non publishing research on the Exxon-Mobile payroll. I'm sure that's irrelevent)
<0> Plenty of trees downwind.
<0> It is irrelevant, Asriel.
<2> as I said
<0> I don't care if he's Bush.
<2> Just odd that he doesn't declare that in his article
<2> bit of a conflict of interest, raelly
<0> Nice quotes in there
<0> "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
<4> lol I lub u asriel
<2> well, I believe that article is from "Science". The international standard for peer reviewed scientific discussion
<0> "a ... sr ... ie ... l ... is a h ... om ... o"
<2> if anyone speaks for science, it'd be Science
<0> See, I quoted your link
<2> Nature would also be good, but I couldn't find anything from them
<0> Nothing in your link seems to address evidence, asriel.
<0> It's all more referential crap.
<0> And, bad referential crap at that.
<2> yes, that's science for you. You have to go read the papers they mention for evidence
<2> it's a summary article
<0> Yes, I don't care about the summary article.
<0> You've already summarized your position for us.
<2> the references are at the bottom, if you want them
<0> I don't need Naomi to do it too.
<0> Most of them aren't links and I'm not a library
<2> Well gee. No wonder you never find any of the actual evidence :)
<0> Actually, I find a lot of the actual evidence.
<0> What makes you think I've never studied this subject?
<2> really? Without reading the actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
<0> The only papers you've shown us are cliff's notes of opinions.
<2> given that you're not a library, and you can't get them from links and all
<0> I don't think you'd recognize a scientific paper if it fell in your lap.
<0> Heat island effects, satellite measurements, chemical interaction studies, core sampling data, etc.
<0> There are millions of aspects of this kind of science
<0> And none of your sources are even pretending to mention any of them.
<2> no doubt. But that seems like a solid summary article from a highly respected journal
<0> It's all, they saw a graph and now they're convinced.
<0> I don't care.
<2> Er, I rather doubt that
<0> Why is science about "seeming" to you?
<0> And opinion?
<0> That link is an editorial.
<2> Yes, so you *read* the references it editorialises
<0> Well, unfortunately, I can't, since they're not links.
<0> And you didn't paste them anyway.
<0> It's not incumbent on me to research your claim to prove it to me.
<2> Indeed. You can't get most papers online, you need to head to your university library
<0> It's your claim.
<0> If you won't support it, that's your problem.
<0> Not mine.
<2> I actually don't give a rats *** about your opinion. I thought you might be interested, given that you claimed no science supports it
<0> I'm not pasting editorials from the wall street journal to you, am I?
<0> Science isn't opinion.
<0> This is your eurosocialism at work
<2> No, but then the WSJ isn't an internationally accepted scientific journal
<0> Science isn't populist
<2> Well, actually, it is
<0> A scientific fact remains true whether 99% of scientists believe it or 1% of scientists believe it
<2> Experimental science is pretty much defined as populist
<0> If you want to talk science, talk facts, not scientists.
<2> Because you can never prove something true, you can only prove something false
<0> You're showing me People instead of Newsweek
<0> Of course you can prove things true.
<5> you can prove something true :P
<2> You can never prove a cause true in experimental science
<2> You can only show that nothing else *we know of* explains it
<0> In an experiment?
<2> You can only ever prove a hypothesis false
<0> No, you can show a hypothesis holds water or not.
<2> And you run your experiment enough times to show the odds of it being false limit off to zero
<0> You're confusing literal certainty with scientific certainty.
<0> Connections can be found, philosophical skepticism notwithstanding.
<0> In fact, even the philosophical skeptics agreed with that.
<2> But you can't prove it true. Experiments can only ever fail to prove something false
<0> You think they ran around trying to defy gravity?
<0> Or not eating because they didn't believe that eating resulted in less hunger?
<2> People still disagree with the theory. The evidence is strong for it
<0> Maybe a few did, but we call them freaks.
<0> Not scientists.
<2> But some people still believe god holds people to earth with his magic powers
<0> So what?
<0> Once again, why is science about people to you?
<0> Let's clear something up.
<0> When I'm talking about science, I'm not talking about sociology.
<2> So which science do you take wherein you can prove the cause of something perfectly?
<2> (Note: Mathematics is not a science)
<0> Perfectly or with certainty?
<4> **** this, I got tired of trying to pull JB's head out the sand
<4> :)
<0> And, why are the two the same to you, Asriel?
<2> Nope
<0> Floyd, my head isn't in the sand, and you haven't tried anything.
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#linux
#MissKitten
#linux
how to install j2eesdk-1_4_03-linux.bin in fedora core 3
lisbjana
#c++
#chatzone
chmod: changing permissions of `aquota.user': Operation not permitted
#asm
#chatzone
|
|