Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to singleslammer: One other small requirement... you have to be able to do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
I was about to write something relevant to the thread till I saw that.... Now all I can think about is becoming a bow wielding mad man. Screw the world, I've got spring loaded projectiles
Meanwhile, back out in the factories, fields, and oilpatches of this world, industrial production is way up, there's an oil glut that'll find who the weakest link is (I'm hoping for Russia but it'll probably be Alberta), and I'm still wondering how the farmers have been able to feed all of us with the lousy weather recently.
Oh, THE WEATHER. Global warming, you know. 2014 was the hottest year in the history of the world, you know, and Don't Read This.
Another argument for global warming being a hoax that relies on a global conspiracy of scientists to falsify all data going back at least to the start of the industrial revolution, and to all cooperate to not collect a Nobel prize for blowing the whistle.
Very convincing.
It doesn't say "all scientist." Scientists use a common data base to look at. You just add a few fudge factors to that database and bingo, says whatever you want it to say.
Hey, speaking of which, I punched it on the onramp today. Better make sure your up high on the island or you might get wet. And tomorrow I'll be sure and punch it in the LS400. That gets about 2-3MPG at WOT. You can watch it in realtime. You have to work it to get it to 2, though. Come On CO2!!! Gameboy's got warm feet and needs to soak them!!!
I live a couple hundred feet up, like everyone else more than a few feet ASL, I'd only suffer from the same negative effects as anyone else, minus property damage via ocean flooding.
Many scientists contribute to the common database and check it against many other data sources (satellite, various paleo sources, different sensor arrays of the same type...), so just how many elite secret conspirators are needed? Sounds like a lot to me...
All you have to do is pay them. Ever seen how graduate school works? It's all about the grant money.
I've always thought there was a global cabal about dinosaurs. Those lying scientists.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to singleslammer: One other small requirement... you have to be able to do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
I decided several weeks ago to get back into archery. Watching the Walking Dead on Netflix probably had a lot to do with it. Thanks for the video.
Dr. Hess wrote: All you have to do is pay them. Ever seen how graduate school works? It's all about the grant money.
And it was remotely controlled planes that flew into the twin towers as well, right?
GameboyRMH wrote: Very convincing.
You're telling me, we have scientists telling us they can reliably tell within a degree or two what the temperature was a couple thousand years ago. Ha! How hilarious of a notion is that?
Because it certainly is. I implore anyone that thinks they understand how the research world works to get into the biz themselves, and get back to this thread after a couple of years.
The long and short of it is, the issues that people have with the scientific community are VERY relevant and an important point of the overall general conversation about things like climate change. To act like the scientific community can't be railroaded or commanded with money and politics is laughable.
chaparral wrote: there's an oil glut that'll find who the weakest link is (I'm hoping for Russia but it'll probably be Alberta)
Nope. Things will keep trucking along here. These plants will run at a loss for YEARS because it is cheaper to keep them running then to idle them. Just because we aren't sustaining huge GROWTH doesn't mean the industry all of a sudden dies.
They are built to operate for 70 years. They will operate for 70 years.
HiTempguy wrote: To act like the scientific community can't be railroaded or commanded with money and politics is laughable.
Well it hasn't happened before in history, despite strong economic and political motives. Cigarettes were known to be harmful from early on. Both climate and renewable energy research survive against a massive fossil fuel industry. Scientific racism is quickly squashed every time it raises its ugly head, which has always been politically inconvenient. Biology and astronomy have been providing alternatives to religious explanations from day one, much to the dislike of religious authorities, even when they were very powerful.
But some academics going after lower wages than they could make elsewhere and a few green energy companies were the overwhelming force that finally broke the camel's back? 
Also I find some things that are done in the oil industry more amazing than paleoclimatology...but they're just as scientifically valid, so why should I doubt them?
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Wait, what do you mean it hasn't happened before??
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
https://explorable.com/science-fraud
I could post hundreds of other articles, if I was willing to spend 5 minutes researching.
Scientists are every bit as prone to illicit behaviors as the rest of us minions.
My point is that scientific misconduct is the exception, and has always been caught quickly. Nobody has built on top of scientific misconduct. They're short dead ends that are soon trimmed off. That sounds like the system working to me.
Edit: The worst that has come from scientific misconduct is a conspiracy theory, such as the anti-vaccine movement, and it is indeed very bad when that happens.
GameboyRMH wrote: My point is that scientific misconduct is the exception, and has always been caught quickly. Nobody has built on top of scientific misconduct. They're short dead ends that are soon trimmed off. That sounds like the system working to me. Edit: The worst that has come from scientific misconduct is a conspiracy theory, such as the anti-vaccine movement, and it is indeed very bad when that happens.
But at that point it is not the scientific community perpetrating it.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Yeah, whatever.
"The Earth is flat". -scientists, Class of 1491
GameboyRMH wrote: My point is that scientific misconduct is the exception, and has always been caught quickly.
Oh yea. Global cooling. Vaccines causing autism. That stuff didn't do any damage.
It hilarious how you are making it sound like a couple years of bad science doesn't matter, when it actually has huge consequences.
I'm not even arguing with you about climate change. I think it is a thing. But I think it always is a thing, and always will be. When a scientist can tell me the temperature 2000 years ago accurately within +- 0.5*C, let me know. I'd like to see their calibration standard that certifies that data haha.
…good grief, this debate again.
Of course human activity is affecting the climate (show me one example of a physical action having no effect of any kind).
The effect will almost certainly be negative (randomly banging a hammer around under your hood theoretically could make you engine run better but 99.99% of the time, it’ll run worse).
The fact that we’re alive to have this debate is a proof that the planet has potent self-stabilizing mechanisms allowing it to tolerant abuse. How much abuse it can tolerate is far beyond modern science’s ability to determine.
Given the decades long intervals between cause and effect on the global climate and the near certainty that drastic tipping points exist that will put us beyond the point of no return, it would be extremely prudent for us to act now.
Regrettably though, our political system is totally incapable of making these types mature and responsible decisions…it is driven solely by immediate gratification and self-interest. The political solution offered was Al Gore and his laughable carbon credit scam.
The scientists that make definitive statements like “human activity is causing global climate change” are a joke. I’m a scientist, I know what competent science looks like…no predefined prediction interval + no predefined confidence level = no legitimate science. Hopefully, everyone appreciates the significance of changing the term from global warming to global climate change. Say and do whatever it takes to keep that sweet grant money flowing.
Bottom line, I do believe that human activity poses a serious threat to our global climate but I don’t believe supporting government intervention will do much if any good…it’ll just be exploited to pi$$ away my money and freedom so no thanks.
I love science, but I am not going to make a god out of it.
It is every bit as fallable as anything else.
Consider the Brontosaurus.
Or all those artists renderings of gradual evolution.
Piltdown man? (41 years scientists worldwide believed it to be the oldest human ancestor)
Embryonic recapitulation?
Archaeoraptor? (That one made National Geographic!)
Hwang Woo-Suk?
How about cold fusion?
Or poor little Pluto?
There are plenty of frauds and errors that the scientific community has promulgated and forced down the throats of unsuspecting public. Many were supported by many scientific peers for decades.
SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Yeah, whatever. "The Earth is flat". -scientists, Class of 1491
Well no. The Greeks knew it to be round. As did everyone else afterwards too.
Maybe you don't like wikipedia but its pretty reliable :During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[2]
SVreX wrote: I love science, but I am not going to make a god out of it. It is every bit as fallable as anything else. Consider the Brontosaurus. Or all those artists renderings of gradual evolution. Piltdown man? (41 years scientists worldwide believed it to be the oldest human ancestor) Embryonic recapitulation? Archaeoraptor? (That one made National Geographic!) Hwang Woo-Suk? How about cold fusion? Or poor little Pluto? There are plenty of frauds and errors that the scientific community has promulgated and forced down the throats of unsuspecting public. Many were supported by many scientific peers for decades.
I will ignore the rest of your anti science screed in order to focus on Pluto. Pluto is a textbook example of science at work. The fact that you bring it up along with Piltdown man demonstrates your bias perfectly. One hoax does not equate to a change in status based upon the very principals of scientific theory. The hoax which was not known to be a hoax at the time, was subject to testing just as any hypothesis would be. Contemporaneously piltdown man was challenged significantly by other scientists at the time. Herein lies the rub. Science welcomes challenges to existing theory while religion teaches dogma. A hypothesis is constantly tested over time and the hypothesis is refined based upon the latest knowledge. Dogma is presented as accepted fact without a test. This is the greatest power of science and is not evident in religion, conspiracy theory, or any other of your favorite untested hypotheses.
First world problems, what's for supper? Dog or garbage?
mattm wrote:SVreX wrote: I love science, but I am not going to make a god out of it. It is every bit as fallable as anything else. Consider the Brontosaurus. Or all those artists renderings of gradual evolution. Piltdown man? (41 years scientists worldwide believed it to be the oldest human ancestor) Embryonic recapitulation? Archaeoraptor? (That one made National Geographic!) Hwang Woo-Suk? How about cold fusion? Or poor little Pluto? There are plenty of frauds and errors that the scientific community has promulgated and forced down the throats of unsuspecting public. Many were supported by many scientific peers for decades.I will ignore the rest of your anti science screed in order to focus on Pluto. Pluto is a textbook example of science at work. The fact that you bring it up along with Piltdown man demonstrates your bias perfectly. One hoax does not equate to a change in status based upon the very principals of scientific theory. The hoax which was not known to be a hoax at the time, was subject to testing just as any hypothesis would be. Contemporaneously piltdown man was challenged significantly by other scientists at the time. Herein lies the rub. Science welcomes challenges to existing theory while religion teaches dogma. A hypothesis is constantly tested over time and the hypothesis is refined based upon the latest knowledge. Dogma is presented as accepted fact without a test. This is the greatest power of science and is not evident in religion, conspiracy theory, or any other of your favorite untested hypotheses.
I agree, mostly.
I, however, DID NOT bring up religion. You did.
And my comments are not representative of any bias. They were simply the first few mistakes and/or biases that came to mind.
While I agree that Piltdown man was eventually exposed as a hoax through rigorous scientific challenges, IT STILL TOOK 41 YEARS. For over 4 decades, it was accepted as true. The "contemporaneous challenges" you referred to were reconstructed models built by the Royal College of Surgeons which used copies of the SAME FRAGMENTS (even though the fragments were found in different locations). You call that a "significant challenge". I call it bad science. The good science came 41 years later.
I have no interest in a discussion of religion, but since you brought it up, there is a great deal of theology that has been reconsidered, corrected, and reinterpreted as well, especially if you look at a period 4 decades long. I think that is a good thing, for both religion AND science.
I responded to one issue, and one issue only. The assertion that the scientific community is above making mistakes, or sustaining them for any length of time. That assertion is patently false.
Regardless of how you feel about it.
Sure, I should have left out Pluto. It never was a hoax. But I didn't actually say "hoax". I said "error". Perhaps I should have said "disagreement", since less than 5% of astronomers ever voted on it, and a few reasonably significant scientific groups (like NASA and Johns Hopkins University) still disagree on the classification.
Your need to make an enemy of me, turn it into an argument about religion, and jump me for sport is a far greater evidence of YOUR personal biases than anything I have put forth, ESPECIALLY when we essentially AGREE on the scientific contributions. I am sorry you feel that way.
chrispy wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to singleslammer: One other small requirement... you have to be able to do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGkI decided several weeks ago to get back into archery. Watching the Walking Dead on Netflix probably had a lot to do with it. Thanks for the video.
Then don't forget to read this!: Shameless archery build thread plug
I can't do archery and parkour at the same time, but I can make the bows. Does that get me into the GRM compound?
You'll need to log in to post.
