Dubstepforum.com

.spec wrote:

Surface_Tension wrote:snip

I should have expected you to post that next. Do you have any idea how small of a percentage 650 scientists is? Maybe if it was "650 scientists in Hawaii" or "650 scientists in Delaware" I'd be thinking "wow that's a lot" but worldwide. Get outta here. There are on the order of 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands climate scientists worldwide. The fact that you think 650 is even approaching statisticly significant is laughable.

I could post link after link containing peer reviewed scientific papers that prove you wrong Surface_Tension but I'm not going to bother because people like you are too wrapped up in their own tinfoil hat wearing conspiracies that it's not worth the time.

Peer reviewed by the same people who work for corporations with a financial interest in Global Warming being real. I bet you think that the Cancer Institute really has an interest in curing Cancer too.

Surface_Tension wrote:I bet you think that the Cancer Institute really has an interest in curing Cancer too.

Christ mate, when you've got an outlook on the world as bleak as this, what's the fucking point?

Surface_Tension wrote: Peer reviewed by the same people who work for corporations with a financial interest in Global Warming being real. I bet you think that the Cancer Institute really has an interest in curing Cancer too.

All science is a conspiracy!




I'm done with this dude. I have no interest in arguing this with you and derailing this thread any further. I just wanted to point out how logically bankrupt what you were saying was.

Surface_Tension wrote:stuff

While I'm skeptical of anthropogenic global warming myself (I'm undecided -- though honestly, it doesn't matter to me, whether it's real or not, we still have to end our dependence on fossil fuels), some of those quotes don't mean much without proper context at all.

.spec wrote:I should have expected you to post that next. Do you have any idea how small of a percentage 650 scientists is? Maybe if it was "650 scientists in Hawaii" or "650 scientists in Delaware" I'd be thinking "wow that's a lot" but worldwide. Get outta here. There are on the order of 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands climate scientists worldwide. The fact that you think 650 is even approaching statisticly significant is laughable.

I could post link after link containing peer reviewed scientific papers that prove you wrong Surface_Tension but I'm not going to bother because people like you are too wrapped up in their own tinfoil hat wearing conspiracies that it's not worth the time.

650 scientists can be a lot depending on how "renowned" they are and how much they've contributed in the past. Statistics like this are nothing but pissing contests coming from either side as far as I am concerned.

The number of scientists don't matter, anyway. There was a time that phyletic gradualism was the scientific consensus and punctuated equilibrium was frowned upon by much of the scientific community, meanwhile, punctuated equilibrium (god, I hate typing that word) is a lot more logical from a geological and evolutionary stand-point and it's now widely regarded to be true by most of the scientific community.

Genevieve wrote: 650 scientists can be a lot depending on how "renowned" they are and how much they've contributed in the past. Statistics like this are nothing but pissing contests coming from either side as far as I am concerned.

How renowned a scientist is doesn't make any difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

The number of scientists don't matter, anyway. There was a time that phyletic gradualism was the scientific consensus and punctuated equilibrium was frowned upon by much of the scientific community, meanwhile, punctuated equilibrium (god, I hate typing that word) is a lot more logical from a geological and evolutionary stand-point and it's now widely regarded to be true by most of the scientific community.

This is kind of my point though. The reason phyletic gradualism fell out of favor was due the lack of science supporting it. You have an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to punctuated equilibrium (yeah that sucks to type) as being the more plausible answer which in turn creates an overwhelming favor in the scientific community to that theory.

It's the same thing with global warming. There's an equally overwhelming consensus, and evidence to back it up that global warming is a man made so the fact that he can show that a pocket of scientists aren't convinced doesn't disprove a thing. I could probably find a few hundred scientists that believe the Earth is 9000 years old, that sure as fuck doesn't mean that it's true.

Margins Music is a coffee table borefest with uninspiring beats and ill fitting samples. It is only rated so highly as it was made by the unofficial tastemaker of dubstep and people are scared to have a contrary opinion.

.spec wrote:How renowned a scientist is doesn't make any difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

It doesn't matter to me. I guess it wasn't all that clear, but I was being sarcastic in the first part of the part you quoted there. As I said, listing scientists against each other is a pissing contest to me. I care more for their ideas than the scientists. I mean, I admire Robert T. Bakker's contributions to paleontology, but he's had some ideas that were way off before.

.spec wrote:This is kind of my point though. The reason phyletic gradualism fell out of favor was due the lack of science supporting it. You have an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to punctuated equilibrium (yeah that sucks to type) as being the more plausible answer which in turn creates an overwhelming favor in the scientific community to that theory.

It's the same thing with global warming. There's an equally overwhelming consensus, and evidence to back it up that global warming is a man made so the fact that he can show that a pocket of scientists aren't convinced doesn't disprove a thing. I could probably find a few hundred scientists that believe the Earth is 9000 years old, that sure as fuck doesn't mean that it's true.

Difference is, the points some of these scientists - from either side - bring up are actually valid and testable as opposed to Young Earth creationists and yeah, it may be the "consensus , but the consensus has been wrong before (as I showed using the example of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium). Phyletic gradualism was still the consensus until the mid '80s, whereas the theory of it was already published in the early '70s. Except now the media is zealously backing anthropogenic global warming. I'd like to see some more evidence from both sides before I make up my mind or to see either side's point being disproved.

The scientific consensus by MOST scientists in 1979 is that Global Cooling was happening, now it's warming... in 3 years it will be cooling... funny how it works with the cycles of the Earth.

Also, the surface of Mars is heating up... better tax those martians.

datura wrote:Margins Music is a coffee table borefest with uninspiring beats and ill fitting samples. It is only rated so highly as it was made by the unofficial tastemaker of dubstep and people are scared to have a contrary opinion.

I agree with the ill fitting samples point, the tunes don't resonate with me much at all.

Surface_Tension: Obviously you're within your right to say whatever you want but when you say shit like that you come off as not extremely ignorant whether you have something to say or not. Are you the type of person that sees snow and says "welp so much for global warming heh"?

Genevieve: I'll appreciate the fact that we disagree on this and leave it. I will put out there though that there is a staggering amount of evidence that we're doing serious harm to our planet.

And in the end if it turns out that global warming wasn't 100% due to mankind I would still say that conservation, and care for our earth are the moral things to do regardless. I don't go home and shit in my living room so why would I do the same to the planet I live on.

I also really appreciate your replies. I never have an issue with disagreeing with someone who sounds intelligent and is making an attempt at rational discussion.

Now to get this thread back on track another unpopular opinion.

When given the choice between an American microbrew and an English style ale will go with the American beer 10/10. Around here that's not _that_ unpopular but on this forum it might be.

.spec wrote:Surface_Tension: Obviously you're within your right to say whatever you want but when you say shit like that you come off as not extremely ignorant whether you have something to say or not. Are you the type of person that sees snow and says "welp so much for global warming heh"?

Genevieve: I'll appreciate the fact that we disagree on this and leave it. I will put out there though that there is a staggering amount of evidence that we're doing serious harm to our planet.

And in the end if it turns out that global warming wasn't 100% due to mankind I would still say that conservation, and care for our earth are the moral things to do regardless. I don't go home and shit in my living room so why would I do the same to the planet I live on.

I also really appreciate your replies. I never have an issue with disagreeing with someone who sounds intelligent and is making an attempt at rational discussion.

Now to get this thread back on track another unpopular opinion.

When given the choice between an American microbrew and an English style ale will go with the American beer 10/10. Around here that's not _that_ unpopular but on this forum it might be.

I agree, clean up the environment. I do not agree that carbon(what you and I and all living things and all organic matter are MADE OF) is the problem, nor do I believe for a second that raising taxes to prevent carbon will solve anything. Carbon isn't the cause of global warming. You can tax it all you want, but the sun still works on it's own time. Spend that money exploring another planet, because that is the only solution. I don't look outside and see snow and say "welp screw global warming" but as a person with a few MD's on one side of the family who believe whole heartedly in the medical establishment and ND's on the other side, who believe in more natural medicine, and then talking to them and seeing what they have to say about medicine and healing vs prevention, natural cures vs doping people up... well damned if I don't avoid the double blind bureaucracy every time.

Transfer that to any other form of science. If there is NO MONEY in it, they aren't inclined to spend billions of dollars trying to cure it. So they create a vaccine full of lead mercury to cause a few more problems down the road.

This is the same way we got things such as "religion" because it's not enough to just say "hey, you know what sometimes hurricanes wipe out coastal cities" and leave it at that. We need to seek out an explanation and aren't content with having no control over it. FACT: One day the entire west coast will be either an island or a sandbar in the middle of the ocean. That has nothing to do with a Hummer H2. You know what DOES have to do with a Hummer H2? Not being able to see the Hollywood sign. There is a difference between carbon emissions and actual dangerous emissions that cause cancer and shit like that, which I'm ALL for cleaning up. Don't waste our time and money on shit that won't make any real difference for literally thousands of years.

.spec wrote:I don't go home and shit in my living room

You're KIDDING.

DJelements wrote:

.spec wrote:I don't go home and shit in my living room

You're KIDDING.

I should say I don't ANYMORE. I finally got tired of renting that fucking Rug Doctor.

.spec wrote: And in the end if it turns out that global warming wasn't 100% due to mankind I would still say that conservation, and care for our earth are the moral things to do regardless. I don't go home and shit in my living room so why would I do the same to the planet I live on.

Oh yes, most certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm the black sheep of the libertarians because I don't think that free markets or personal freedom and choice apply to nature since the ideology is humancentric and transcends philosophy and economy. We need to take care of our planet, whether global warming is happening or not.

There are so many pros to not using finite resources, other than pollution and CO2 emissions. Clean energy is far cheaper because it's infinite. Since it's infinite, the supply is always greater than the demand. If the governments weren't in bed with the oil companies, a free market would definitely shift to the use of clean energy. Our cars would've been running on ethanol years ago had no one banned hemp in the United States years ago.

Genevieve wrote:

.spec wrote: And in the end if it turns out that global warming wasn't 100% due to mankind I would still say that conservation, and care for our earth are the moral things to do regardless. I don't go home and shit in my living room so why would I do the same to the planet I live on.

Oh yes, most certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm the black sheep of the libertarians because I don't think that free markets or personal freedom and choice apply to nature since the ideology is humancentric and transcends philosophy and economy. We need to take care of our planet, whether global warming is happening or not.

There are so many pros to not using finite resources, other than pollution and CO2 emissions. Clean energy is far cheaper because it's infinite. Since it's infinite, the supply is always greater than the demand. If the governments weren't in bed with the oil companies, a free market would definitely shift to the use of clean energy. Our cars would've been running on ethanol years ago had no one banned hemp in the United States years ago.

I endorse this message.

.spec wrote:

DJelements wrote:

.spec wrote:I don't go home and shit in my living room

You're KIDDING.

I should say I don't ANYMORE. I finally got tired of renting that fucking Rug Doctor.

You cleaned it?
Pussy.
That squelchy feeling between the toes is the only thing keeping me sane.

DJelements wrote: That squelchy feeling between the toes is the only thing keeping me sane.

Big ups to the pooptoe massive.

kins83 wrote:

Surface_Tension wrote:I bet you think that the Cancer Institute really has an interest in curing Cancer too.

Christ mate, when you've got an outlook on the world as bleak as this, what's the fucking point?

this kind of attitude like kins, who might be the coolest fella otherwise, always paralysis my brain!

it's not the first time i read something like this and i won't ever ever understand how a man's outlook needs to have any other point than knowing what's really going on, is there any other?!

If the world is bleak, should the outlook be different, or what?!

some guys diluted the concept of truth until it became similar to ufos and people think it's about opinions now...

i've reached my understanding limits for the human responses to some stimulus lol

.spec wrote: It's the same thing with global warming. There's an equally overwhelming consensus, and evidence to back it up that global warming is a man made so the fact that he can show that a pocket of scientists aren't convinced doesn't disprove a thing.

Frankly... that is bollox...

I believe there is a small majority that believe this but no concrete evidence and it is, like i say, a small majority!

Damn i need to dig out that stuff i read about this...