First send me the $600, and I'll get back to ya...
Search
Search results: 2,372 found, showing up to 50
Me to. It was more about sociology/psychology than sci-fi. The sci-fi genre was a backdrop/background to tell a tale of human-indecency vs decency. The protagonist had to be thrust into undesired circumstances before he finally found common-ground with "Christopher" prawn, and even then reluctantly.CC-Marley wrote:
I liked it a lot.
Why, what(?), does that mean mitch was banned?Uzique wrote:
Why is War Man even still here.
He's like mitch, only more tenacious.
Why would that matter? When is "now" are you opening up to the idea then?War Man wrote:
I don't remember this. When was this?m3thod wrote:
i don't like you warman because you said no to my sexual advances.
I thought it was a moniker mistake and he's really WarBoy, am I wrong?robcr9 wrote:
WWhere do babies come from? IM ASKING THIS TO WARMAN!
^^^ Why do I love you "too much" and "long time?"
Edit: Eh, whoever the fuck you are?
Edit: Eh, whoever the fuck you are?
I don't lie, except if the topic is body fat.
Why would I ask you anything, you're probably not much better-off than the village idiot?
Nah, it's been pushing for more than 30 years. It just accelerated to the point you can't help but notice the 'probing' of the public's general constituent-ensemble 'moon.' O' here let me push that red hot poker just a little... oops my bad... it broke off.
PS: There should be a new euphemism for such ballsy audacious behavior. I don't know maybe, like, that took some Gold-man Sachs to try and get away with that shit.
PS: There should be a new euphemism for such ballsy audacious behavior. I don't know maybe, like, that took some Gold-man Sachs to try and get away with that shit.
I wasn't thinking of a whole personage when I unzipped the semiotic flow...
chittydog wrote:
What makes Shatner cool, even to this day, is that he's completely aware of his public image. He just has fun with it.
You can't title a thread 'probing' the 'moon' and not have some adult content?
They [the credit card co.] charge the company [he buys from] a percentage fee of the transaction. Overall prices goes up and yet people think they're saving money? How could they be - the credit card companies make pure profit and the consumer pays one way or another.King_County_Downy wrote:
Using credit saves you money? You must have a low interest rate.DrunkFace wrote:
Meh, Cash pisses me of sometimes, and I buy almost everything on credit anyway cause it saves me money and is much easier.
Fucking hilarious. I love the idea of it. It's like having amnesia about some really whacked-out adventure you had the night before and you're discovering clues about it; all ending with a nice touch - a digital ensemble of Kodak moments.
Well, you have people (fleshy wimp-bots) and terminators (metal death machines that were made to kill fleshy wimp-bots).
So, who didn't think that whole time while they were in the skynet city center, with a friggen helo waiting outside, that the wimp-bots should not have been overrun by the death-machines? I mean c'mon, they were on death-machine turf - they should have been utterly destroyed in seconds!
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Ah, only good movies have spoilers worth trying to conceal. Spoiled cinema stinks and therefore tis already spoiled.
So, who didn't think that whole time while they were in the skynet city center, with a friggen helo waiting outside, that the wimp-bots should not have been overrun by the death-machines? I mean c'mon, they were on death-machine turf - they should have been utterly destroyed in seconds!
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Ah, only good movies have spoilers worth trying to conceal. Spoiled cinema stinks and therefore tis already spoiled.
Just once? Sorry, sad to hear that.
It's just an idea that imposes one-more level of control onto human-beings. I can even foresee people being evaluted in some way as being equal to their credit score. If you have a bad credit score, which doesn't just mean you fail to make payments but that you don't borrow money often enough, that you'll be looked down upon in the job-market when getting a job in the consumer-grid. Why give a decent paying job to someone who does not pay to have more money (which is a kickback to the elite in the system). I can also guess, or foresee, a difference in those on the grid vs those off, or forced off, the consumer-credit-grid. What better punishment would there be for anyone that has the nerve to challenge the authority of the system than to just kick them off the grid.
Hole in the walls, ah the memories... The cretchens that work those places look like they wandered out of an Orc's hole in the ground. I remember taking my brother to one. This ultra-skinny sheet white skank with more tats than teeth and stringy-hangdown vaglips climbs up onto the bar and dangles "it" over my brothers head. LOL
Later I tell my bro get your "go-away dollars" out she's gonna come over and ask "did you like my dance." They all do. Sure enough she wandered around the bar asking every guy the same thing and every one had a go-away dollar ready for her.
Later I tell my bro get your "go-away dollars" out she's gonna come over and ask "did you like my dance." They all do. Sure enough she wandered around the bar asking every guy the same thing and every one had a go-away dollar ready for her.
Sure let's free associate - and let my stream of consciousness wander.... I wonder... what if a machine?
Who's the programmer elite crowd? The machine maintenance elite crowd?
Certainly a machine without a will of its own - will have the will of another/others. Sounds like more of the same to me; less humanity in the system.
It is already an emotionless robotic capitalistic greed machine - with cannibalistic super-predators vampirically feeding off the living part inside the machine. Kill the useless super-predators at the top that produce NOTHING real. How about less machine, more humanity; how about fewer vampires and cannibals (useless capitalists), less machine, less Jewish zombie worship and more focus on the real world (real human problems and real human decency), and let technology, honesty, work, integrity, conscience, innovation, entrepreneurs (real capitalists that risk their own money) and personal prosperity be that which guides the system. Or, hey why not more of the same - throw money at (the status quo crowd) a failed system/machine and allow the vampires to build coffins of money to slumber in; inside the inhuman machine, until the next feeding frenzy is viable; when the victim(s) have at least partially recovered.
I guess I don't see how this would be better or truly different.
Who's the programmer elite crowd? The machine maintenance elite crowd?
Certainly a machine without a will of its own - will have the will of another/others. Sounds like more of the same to me; less humanity in the system.
It is already an emotionless robotic capitalistic greed machine - with cannibalistic super-predators vampirically feeding off the living part inside the machine. Kill the useless super-predators at the top that produce NOTHING real. How about less machine, more humanity; how about fewer vampires and cannibals (useless capitalists), less machine, less Jewish zombie worship and more focus on the real world (real human problems and real human decency), and let technology, honesty, work, integrity, conscience, innovation, entrepreneurs (real capitalists that risk their own money) and personal prosperity be that which guides the system. Or, hey why not more of the same - throw money at (the status quo crowd) a failed system/machine and allow the vampires to build coffins of money to slumber in; inside the inhuman machine, until the next feeding frenzy is viable; when the victim(s) have at least partially recovered.
I guess I don't see how this would be better or truly different.
Sucked, boring and insipid--the screenplay was ill-conceived and thence as a film poorly directed. But, I like motorcycles, so I liked the moto-terminaters.
Fucking hilarious... no doubt.The Sheriff wrote:
I liked it too :>Mekstizzle wrote:
Hangover - 9/10
Fucking hilarious film. Ok it has some weird/silly moments but it still made me laugh alot, probably haven't laughed that much in a Cinema since I went to watch Borat when that came out in 2006
I can tell it's a film that alot of people won't like though
Oh hang on I'm wrong, it's actually got some good reviews too
Finding the digital camera at the end, and the pictures... nice touch.
Well I guess, that's one way to save the world, one puppy at a time.Macbeth wrote:
Every time I read a post by mitch on history or politics I want to drown a puppy.
Or you're a stinking fascist capitalist monster that should be destroyed by PETA, because:
Chinese resturant
+
Puppy
= now that's some tasty kung pow chicken, is that chicken? Ress sir dat defrinately chick'n.
Effron?
Like in Zach Effron, of high school musical fame. What has the growing Mitch-sters have to do with him?
Like in Zach Effron, of high school musical fame. What has the growing Mitch-sters have to do with him?
Yeppers,Turquoise wrote:
Indeed... cheap labor that the powers that be would like to enfranchise just a little bit.topal63 wrote:
Another riddle,
What do these have in common?
A Chinese worker
A Indonesian worker
An Illegal alien working in America
And for those that desire border-less capitalist corporate empires, national sovereignty is meaningless. Erase the borders--all is permitted if it benefits the powers that be, whether moving jobs overseas (ignoring the border) or allowing them to cross the border illegally (once again: ignoring the border).
Another riddle,
What do these have in common?
A Chinese worker
A Indonesian worker
An Illegal alien working in America
What do these have in common?
A Chinese worker
A Indonesian worker
An Illegal alien working in America
Double what?Cybargs wrote:
watLotta_Drool wrote:
Islam makes as much sense as liberalism.
Riddles I like riddles, even god is a riddle this "dumb" atheist likes.
But how do you know we are falling? We wont. Slip yes. Fall no. Or is that just semantics?
But how do you know we are falling? We wont. Slip yes. Fall no. Or is that just semantics?
You know what's truly tragic is the fact that, by law, the first bailout under Pres. Bush by then Secretary of the Treasury Paulson--should not have happened.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck that shit. Disband the Fed Reserve and create a public central bank.
Only the government should have the right to create money. Under our current system, we've foolishly allowed corporations to do it.
a.) The FDIC was in place; and nearly all accounts were secured.
b.) By law Paulson was supposed to place the ailing or failing banks in receivership.
If they had begun the process of receivership of course we wouldn't be digging this money-hole deeper and deeper, as most of these problems were known, all the way, back in 2005-2006 and surely well before late 2008. They were required to assume control through receivership, by law. The September crisis was a smokescreen* to avert the law. It is criminal in my opinion. We could have been on the road to getting rid of unproductive WallStreet & Financial sector slime.Title 12, Sec. 18310... mandates that banking regulators must take "prompt corrective action" to resolve a bank in trouble. The law mandates that they (the gov. administering the system) place troubled banks, in receivership well before they become insolvent. Then the admin. shall appoint competent managers, cap executive compensation (no bonuses or raises).
Oh hey, but no... it is an endless sea of money to stay insolvency; either with money (bailouts) or by changing the accounting procedures (i.e. the mark to market on-book value of an asset).
*Smokescreen? At a minimum they are covering up either fraud or like a butcher they don't want anyone to know how the hotdogs are made.
Sure anticlausist, and afairiest,Braddock wrote:
Is there a label for people who don't believe in the tooth fairy or santa claus?
... and not collecting stamps is antistampathy; or antistampathetic.
No, I am struggling to talk about things/philosophical ideas people probably haven't explored. The easiest way out is to give up.mikkel wrote:
Good god, you're trying hard.topal63 wrote:
You clearly do not understand the problems of metaphysics.
PS: But honestly, I don't really care.
You clearly do not understand the problems of metaphysics.
Any definition of the label "g"+"o"+"d" is meaningless. If you attempt to define it--it will be a manufactured conception pulled out of your mind. It wont reveal any true-nature; of that nature (god transcendent what) you're not apprehending.
Any definition of the label "g"+"o"+"d" is meaningless. If you attempt to define it--it will be a manufactured conception pulled out of your mind. It wont reveal any true-nature; of that nature (god transcendent what) you're not apprehending.
First off, if the post is under another then it applies to the one it is under (therefore it applies to: h4hagen's post).
Second, I didn't address your previous untenable point--that we're all agnostics.
Here is some O' dat regularly language for you:
Define what is transcending your mind? This is what the label "g"+"o"+"d" refers to. It inherently is meaningless until one defines it. And, defining it (so far) seems to be an impossible task--since it is transcending your mind, my mind, anyone's mind. Or, are you having trouble understanding this?
Second, I didn't address your previous untenable point--that we're all agnostics.
Here is some O' dat regularly language for you:
Define what is transcending your mind? This is what the label "g"+"o"+"d" refers to. It inherently is meaningless until one defines it. And, defining it (so far) seems to be an impossible task--since it is transcending your mind, my mind, anyone's mind. Or, are you having trouble understanding this?
"Where (or of what) one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence." (Ludwig Wittgenstein)
More didactic prose for Kennny-J,
Lloyd Christmas on understanding chance:
"So you're telling me there's a chance!"
Lloyd Christmas on understanding chance:
"So you're telling me there's a chance!"
Mitch,
Philosophy is not really something you'll just choose. You'll either find yourself inclined to pursue it, or not. Great scientist are similar in this respect that the passion for knowing nature is similar to the quest, in philosophy, of understanding language which is where our notions of truth are bound up and in.
But, even if you don't pursue it diligently you'll still form a world-view. Life will instruct you when books don't. Books just make acquiring experience faster (as you absorb others experiences by reading their personal tales and inner thoughts).
PS: Is philosophy about thinking? In the most general sense yes. It helps you think more clearly and rationally.
Philosophy is not really something you'll just choose. You'll either find yourself inclined to pursue it, or not. Great scientist are similar in this respect that the passion for knowing nature is similar to the quest, in philosophy, of understanding language which is where our notions of truth are bound up and in.
But, even if you don't pursue it diligently you'll still form a world-view. Life will instruct you when books don't. Books just make acquiring experience faster (as you absorb others experiences by reading their personal tales and inner thoughts).
PS: Is philosophy about thinking? In the most general sense yes. It helps you think more clearly and rationally.
O' really how tired an utterly ignorant of you to say so.
I also find it fascinating that you've been able to discern my: age, knowledge-base, understanding, every reason and reasoning ability, books I've read, etc.. all from a mere few sentences.
Define what is transcending your mind please. Also, agnosticism is an insoluble philosophical point related to formal logic. It has its' basic applicability in formal axiomatic systems and legal uses. It is not a case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," that applies to definable knowable reality. And, not undefinable transcendent realities, assumed transcendent realities, psychological experiences, pure fabrications of mind, or the natural assumption of entity ascribed to external phenomenon in nature.
I also find it fascinating that you've been able to discern my: age, knowledge-base, understanding, every reason and reasoning ability, books I've read, etc.. all from a mere few sentences.
Define what is transcending your mind please. Also, agnosticism is an insoluble philosophical point related to formal logic. It has its' basic applicability in formal axiomatic systems and legal uses. It is not a case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," that applies to definable knowable reality. And, not undefinable transcendent realities, assumed transcendent realities, psychological experiences, pure fabrications of mind, or the natural assumption of entity ascribed to external phenomenon in nature.
You're not even asking the proper questions.
I will state this simply for you and can only hope you understand. The principle question is: can one even define a meaningful conception of being that is transcending the mind? Do you understand this question?
I will state this simply for you and can only hope you understand. The principle question is: can one even define a meaningful conception of being that is transcending the mind? Do you understand this question?
Mitch,
You have a world-view, and like any one that thinks about the world, it is in a state of becoming. That is--it often is in a state of change; evolving; accumulating; etc.
Everyone is a philosopher of sorts.
You have a world-view, and like any one that thinks about the world, it is in a state of becoming. That is--it often is in a state of change; evolving; accumulating; etc.
Everyone is a philosopher of sorts.
O' lord, forgive the agnostic for they know not what they not know.
Agnosticism is for those that don't understand philosophy or the meaning of words.
Reminds me of this didactic piece of prose:
"There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know."
Agnosticism is for those that don't understand philosophy or the meaning of words.
Reminds me of this didactic piece of prose:
"There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know."
O snap... without the first assumption God, there are no further assumptions necessary.Vilham wrote:
O snap, it relies on you knowing that god is fair. Again, making assumptions about the SUPREME beingMitch wrote:
Chew on this for a minute.
If god was fair, he would understand that he is pretty unbelievable.
God would understand that rational humans wouldn't believe in him.
Exactly.Bertster7 wrote:
The filter relies on a box between the router and your PC. Destroy this box with a hammer and all your problems disappear....
Also, most newer dsl-routers have wireless built-in. Couldn't he just connect to that directly; enable the wireless feature if the parents turned it off?
Teh resurrected zombie godmen of the BF2S faithful, may your spirits be praised.
Yes, being recently unemployed myself (after working nonstop for the last 25 years)... the anger and anxiety is starting to get to me. In fact, if I decide to collect unemployment I wouldn't mind if they gave me some self-medication (drugs) while I pick up that puny check and cry, "WTF is this paltry amount, do you know how much money I've given the government!!!! I'm supposed to live on this while there's no work in true private sector? Can someone get me a beer, a joint, or meth. or something. I need to anesthetized myself."Macbeth wrote:
Just a thought that went through my mind today, but would it be unreasonable to make people who collect unemployment and welfare to submit to random drug testings?
Yeah right people NOT WORKING need to be drug tested. What a dopey fucking idea.
Oh, I just changed my mind:
I think they should subject them to religious testing as well. No welfare or unemployment for Atheists.
Or gays.
Also if we find a minimum wage job for a divorced mother she has to work, no matter what the costs to her: day-care, travel expenses, etc.
If the person wears a suit and looks presentable, seriously this guy/gal wants to work so it's obvious it's just tough out there, double the benefits.
Require GPS ankle bracelets (and a secret voice recorder) so we can keep tabs on their activities. Imagine them getting a welfare check or unemployment check and wasting it on: booze, hookers, a trip to Disneyland, a night out at the movies, or any other thing that's not an: electric bill, interest payment to a bank, an insurance payment to a health care co., a car payment, rent, food... it's beyond comprehension.
I hereby submit to your will, O' genius of the patriotic heart, your argument for big brother, is not populous BS, and has convinced me I was wrong in my initial reaction to your fucking dopey idea.
PS: Don't take this seriously. Tis just an Internet forum, having some fun, ranting, dribbling, driveling and blathering. "Teh Internets is not serious business."
"Hope it works hehehehe" ???
Erm it can't fail, it can only burden and prop up. That is what it is doing; that is what it is meant to do. It is propping up a failed system (WallStreet [the Equity farce gamble & ponzi game], private banking, congressional overspending, etc).
Why do you think the markets are having a small rally?
Let me break it down for you:
1.) Every insider knew Feb-March would be either the near bottom or near bounce. Turns out to be a bounce point.
2.) The summer will be the next near bottom or bounce point.
Based upon that, knowing the general forward looking elements that go into that assessment:
3.) Cash flow was still needed for the bounce (small rally).
4.) That came in the form of the Fed adding assets to it's balance sheet.
5.) The Securities purchased by the Fed from WallStreet institutions, freed up cash for WallStreet to buy assumed undervalued equities.
The Fed has been a market manipulator and WallStreet support mechanism, as far back as I can remember, so same as it ever was.
6.) Increasing the money supply at the Federal Reserve level is cheaper than doing it in the private sector. Why don't bankers support: loans directly to businesses from the fed or expanding the money supply directly? Because anything that doesn't add to their balance sheet or ability to earn interest means they're out of the picture.
7.) The private banking money supply is still in a state of contraction. The pool of available money is shrinking, thus GDP, thus jobs, thus actual money to pay bills with and meet one's daily needs. It is contracting due to accounting procedures. They are required to destroy money; debt; when a loan defaults. If there is a difference in real value (of the asset) versus the debt-instrument (loan) the bank is liable for the difference. If a loan with an existing principle payoff value of $300,000 is only worth $150,000 true market value, then the bank is liable for the difference. Technically $150,000 is being destroyed from the available money pool, now multiply that by a million times--and you've got an insolvent banking system and severely collapsed money supply.
The article is a smoke-screen and yet few will ever read it anyways. It defers criticism to policy makers in Washington, "look what they're doing," while saying nothing about WallStreet or the true nature of the system. It's basically pointless.
The only problem with creating commitments and money at the National level--is failing to get ride of the slimy system existing in the private sector (private money supply creation scheme. PS: That causes more inflation than the Fed does. Why? It's obvious they've created more money through debt creation).
8.) The money supply does need to be expanded--to get back that portion of the money pool destroyed by private banking (their venture into RISK, making risky loans [creating money] for high interest income).
Erm it can't fail, it can only burden and prop up. That is what it is doing; that is what it is meant to do. It is propping up a failed system (WallStreet [the Equity farce gamble & ponzi game], private banking, congressional overspending, etc).
Why do you think the markets are having a small rally?
Let me break it down for you:
1.) Every insider knew Feb-March would be either the near bottom or near bounce. Turns out to be a bounce point.
2.) The summer will be the next near bottom or bounce point.
Based upon that, knowing the general forward looking elements that go into that assessment:
3.) Cash flow was still needed for the bounce (small rally).
4.) That came in the form of the Fed adding assets to it's balance sheet.
5.) The Securities purchased by the Fed from WallStreet institutions, freed up cash for WallStreet to buy assumed undervalued equities.
The Fed has been a market manipulator and WallStreet support mechanism, as far back as I can remember, so same as it ever was.
6.) Increasing the money supply at the Federal Reserve level is cheaper than doing it in the private sector. Why don't bankers support: loans directly to businesses from the fed or expanding the money supply directly? Because anything that doesn't add to their balance sheet or ability to earn interest means they're out of the picture.
7.) The private banking money supply is still in a state of contraction. The pool of available money is shrinking, thus GDP, thus jobs, thus actual money to pay bills with and meet one's daily needs. It is contracting due to accounting procedures. They are required to destroy money; debt; when a loan defaults. If there is a difference in real value (of the asset) versus the debt-instrument (loan) the bank is liable for the difference. If a loan with an existing principle payoff value of $300,000 is only worth $150,000 true market value, then the bank is liable for the difference. Technically $150,000 is being destroyed from the available money pool, now multiply that by a million times--and you've got an insolvent banking system and severely collapsed money supply.
The article is a smoke-screen and yet few will ever read it anyways. It defers criticism to policy makers in Washington, "look what they're doing," while saying nothing about WallStreet or the true nature of the system. It's basically pointless.
The only problem with creating commitments and money at the National level--is failing to get ride of the slimy system existing in the private sector (private money supply creation scheme. PS: That causes more inflation than the Fed does. Why? It's obvious they've created more money through debt creation).
8.) The money supply does need to be expanded--to get back that portion of the money pool destroyed by private banking (their venture into RISK, making risky loans [creating money] for high interest income).
No, most are recycled shit (the contrarian conspiracy crap). I've read them before why reread them again.
More truth:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … r-readers/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … r-readers/
We would like to apologize to our loyal readers who have provided us so much support since we first went online in December 2004. However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute's recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled — in favor of the contrarians. Indeed, even IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has now admitted that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax after all. Accordingly, RealClimate no longer has a reason for existence. The contrarians have made a convincing case that (a) global warming isn't happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway. (Can we get our check now?)
Sweet barking Jesus, who's the zealot?
Feel free to "troll" (your word)... as much as you like.
Your words:
Feel free to "troll" (your word)... as much as you like.
Your words:
... I will troll each and every global warming debate on DS&T...
LOL-ing, saying it isn't credible by funding, saying I have an emotional attachment to a science paper (utterly ridiculous), saying science is a sham, a credit market for carbon emissions (<-- isn't science) supports your conspiracy theory, etc... is not an argument.Diesel_dyk wrote:
You can't do can you? I'm challenging the credibility of the reports you hold onto so dearly. They are tainted by money given by an entity that is set to reap $6.7 trillion, an entity that represents the interests of people who would love to create a new market in carbon credits. As for conspiracy??? greed and profit are not a conspiracy they are a driving motivation and when 6.7 trillion is on the table and the creation of a whole new false market in carbon credits will allow wall street profiteers to reap billions, I think that's as far as I need to go.topal63 wrote:
PS: Who do think funds physics research in America. You, private enterprise or the government on behalf of the people, because it is our best interests to fund science as almost all of it would go unfunded otherwise.
You try to say I didn't amke an argument, I would differ on that, people on this thread were calling in to question the credibility of the links on this page. I have now undermined the credibilty of these reports and you don't like it, well tough. The least you could do is retort on how $6.7 trillion isn't a huge moitivating factor, But I doubt you could succeed on that one.
I repeat my challenge, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove your point. If you continue to attack the debater instead of trying to argue the debate then this thread would really be about you shooting down any dissenting voice while pretending you $hit doesn't stink. Then this isn't much of thread or a debate. I challenged the credibilty of these reports so I repeat my chalenge find us a credible source not paid for by the govt or a govt proxy.
BTW I used to be in academia so I know how the sausage gets made, the ivory is on the outside, but the inside is a septic tank. Oh yah, ridiclous comment about ever read an academic journal, I feel like I was just called a sinner, Sorry for not being a believer LOL.
You may have problems with the idea of carbon-swaps, maybe I do to, but that is not the science of climate change. You have not presented one single piece of evidence for your conspiracy theory. You've made an inference that carbon-swaps might be a sham, so that doesn't have anything to do with the underlying science. Also, is it more plausible that if carbon swaps is a sham it is getting legs (a political life) due to the fact that it is exploiting science, and not generating the science. Climate change (AGW is well documented), but that doesn't mean carbon-swaps are the solution.
Either way you've yet to demonstrate that the science is not credible or the scientist are working in a secret cabal to undermine truth. The easiest way to present your conspiracy theory is to demonstrate you do understand the science to a degree that you can demonstrate the errors therein. And, then demonstrate the widespread lying scientists are doing; for funding. Some papers seem like pointless shams (in physics, anthropology, biology, climate change, any field that is), science makes mistakes and weeds the weak out eventually. You're not talking about that though--you're suggesting some ridiculous conspiracy theory.
I'll challenge you to turn that into a real argument.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Let me repeat my earlier challengeAussieReaper wrote:
Or has his\her submitted works reviewed by peers and colleagues from the same field of study.Vilham wrote:
I agree. Its not like the scientist knows anything.
"But of you want a challenge.... Try posting a link to research showing that global warming is real that has not been funded by the govt, or govt proxies like the UN. I doubt you can find any because the govt money has been so pervasive in this area of so called academic research."
Because its not like scientist can be whores or anything like that /sarcasim
I guess we just should have believed the tobacco industry scientists wholesale and ignored the money trail from their benefactors to the scientists pockets.
As for peer review, I wonder is you're a promising grad student with evidence thatthe manmade effects of global warming is false and that you supervisor is a fraud if you'd be published or even graduate. I doubt that you would challenge anything. You would do exactly like everyone else and get on the govt grant gravy train. So peer review can actually act as a filter to preserve teh status quo, which is whoring yourself to govt money. Peer review does not equall credibility review
So please don't act like those reports you using as a soap box are credible, because they aren't. I repeat my challenge if you think credibility is an issue when you link to something, then I'm going to challenge the credibilty of the reports that you are using.
Prove that there is the slightest truth to your conspiracy theory. Specifically that scientists are working in a concerted effort (some secret cabal, or you think they're just to ignorant to understand the very science fields they are educated-in) to undermine the truth that science serves (to expand our knowledge base empirically, theoretically and by independent verification). Also demonstrate, just in the slightest, that the government is also conspiring to throw money at this because it supports a political agenda (as opposed to science; that would not exist without gov. funding) and/or a grab for real power in America.
Absurd.
PS: Who do you think funds physics research in America? You, private enterprise or the government on behalf of the people, because it is in our best interests to fund science, as almost all of it would go unfunded otherwise.
O' really now, how come I am not believing this statement, especially in reference to actual scientific studies on climate change?usmarine wrote:
i have .... read plenty. ...
Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cli … s_ylo=2004
So which thingy did you read? There's a lot there.
There is also the ever present problem of "belief" it isn't a phenomenon confined to the domain of religiosity. You're going to have trouble arguing and presenting a case against "belief" when the person you're communicating with is scientifically illiterate; or unwilling to learn the science; and they then stick with his/her initial acceptance of an idea that merely appeals to them sans real evidence or real scientific support.Braddock wrote:
I never said you weren't arguing... you're not debating. Dickheads usually argue, more intelligent creatures tend to put forward an argument and then actually debate that argument. If you want to put ignorance up on a pedestal then be my guest just don't expect me to ever take you seriously. If someone wants to tell me their opinion I can simply tell them to shut up and fuck off but if they want to present an actual study or report it's a little bit harder to deny or ignore.usmarine wrote:
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.