Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context. Quote from: jaysabi on July 17, 2015, 07:35:17 PM When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-saysInterestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_datasetIt seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes. Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_modelsFor some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere. So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence. So the arguments for "NO" are (1) proxy vs direct temperature readings and (2) 1998 corrections to the orbital instrument readings?
Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming. |
|
|
|
|
Do you have a link to the article in question? I'd like to test post it to FB and see what happens. It could be that the article is from a known spam site, so automatically trips the censors, rather than being censored based on content.
|
|
|
|
Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:
1. Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
1.A. Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?
2. If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?
3. Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
3.A. In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?
4. If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
4.A. How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?
Thoughts/answers to the above?
1. You have to understand that literacy rates are low in some places in the middle east,combined with the fact that we have given a lot of these people a reason to fight. Isis will continue to eat its own until a better option at life shows up. A bastardized version of Islam is what we are dealing with here anyways,so the question is a little off. 2. Isis could be gaining ground for many reasons. You could say that every drone attack or misfired missle creates tomorrows Isis warriors. Could be religious sects flying under Isis for their own personal gains. Also could be disruption from other Countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran or even Israel. Again it also could be that times are hard and people are given a new voice to rally behind. Change comes and it is not always what the people wanted for the sake of change. 3. You could change Muslim to any other religion and most people would dismiss it but the fact Muslims are the hot topic people will eat it up. 4. Any faction that is seeking power will take all advantages they can get. If you take away these labels we kill a good chunk of the problem. Instead of lone wolf Isis attacks in Europe or America we would have mass killings by unhealthy people. Its like we have given these people a flag to fly under and it provides them with a validation to proceed. 4a. Easy. Look at how many off shoots of Christianity there are today! End of the day we have to stop lumping groups and thinking they are running on the same thinking. Its nice for debate but it damages more than it heals. Well, for number 2, how do drone attacks affect ISIS warring against other Muslims? While drone attacks may give them reason to hate America, I don't see how that translates into butchering, raping, enslaving other Muslims, which constitutes a lot of their crimes currently. Your notion on point 4 is interesting to me, that we are providing a flag for them to fly under by identifying them as a group. However, I would counter that we identify them as a group because they identify themselves as a group. I think absent our characterization of them, they would still be out there acting exactly as they currently are. In regards to 4A, there are very many offshoots of Christianity, but so far as I know, none of them are preaching death to nonbelievers or currently murdering Christians of a sect they consider to be heretical. While that may be a part of their history, is ISIS then just several hundred years behind in their evolution as a society, or is a unique instance unrelated to how Christian sects warred against nonbelievers previously? |
|
|
|
Key word: "buried". Not "banned".
If you have a discussion, but nobody gets to see it you can't really have that discussion. You could say: at least it's consensus based, but someone might be tricking the voting system. And if I decide to do a global search about the advantages of a centralized system withing bitcoin I could still find the posts, even if that subject was buried. It would still be there, somewhere. Not the case with a total ban and cleansing. I agree with you that the banning of ideas is wrong. Even in the case of climate deniers being banned from the science sub, it's wrong. There is no defense to censorship because the exchange of ideas and information is important to the process of understanding. And this opinion is coming from someone who sides with the science supporting the notion of rising temperatures. They are wrong to ban climate deniers. |
|
|
|
Also going to point out, that many believe the Pope to be the antichrist, so putting all your thoughts on Christians onto the Catholic church and pope is a bit foolish. This is the first I've heard of that, but I have quite a specific idea of what type of person would believe that nonsense, and it's not a flattering profile. |
|
|
|
Modifying genes is nothing new. Mankind has been genetically modifying genes in plants since Mendel's pea plants, and the agricultural revolutions that enable us to feed the planet were done through gene manipulation (weeding out less desirable traits through generations and amplifying desirable ones). The only thing different now is the sophistication and the commercialization of it, which is perhaps why the tin foil hatties get nervous.
This is false. Selective breeding and hybridization is a totally different process than creating modern genetically modified organisms. The first is perfectly natural, while the latter allows for combinations of genetic code you would never find in nature, because things like fish don't mate with things like tomatoes, and our understanding of how this will effect gene expression in humans is extremely limited. This is a fair point, and I find it convincing. It doesn't make any GMO automatically bad, but if people just want to avoid the debate about good/bad and skip GMOs completely, I think they should have that ability. And that's where mandatory labeling comes in. |
|
|
|
When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-saysInterestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_datasetIt seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes. For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.
So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence. |
|
|
|
Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:
1. Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
1.A. Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?
2. If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?
3. Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
3.A. In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?
4. If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
4.A. How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?
Thoughts/answers to the above?
No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace. As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace. Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing. So do you think the root cause of violence is "us vs. them" (i.e. tribalism, which isn't unique to religion) or something inherent to religion specifically? |
|
|
|
|
What is the point of boycotting German products? Is it spite? Is it envy? Do you hope to negatively impact the German economy to the point where they can no longer bailout Greece every time they blow through all the money loaned to them?
|
|
|
|
|
Were they not currently coexisting with the US or under the impression that the two could not coexist? I'm confused as to the context of where this quote is coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:
1. Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
1.A. Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?
2. If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?
3. Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
3.A. In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?
4. If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
4.A. How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?
Thoughts/answers to the above?
|
|
|
|
Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.
When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations. What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science? Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.  No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author. This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work. The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire. Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice. What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh. Here's perfect example of you taking something scientific and just making stuff up without having the slightest understanding of what you're talking about. The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.
First, yes Newton's Third Law does state exactly what the reaction is. See if you can keep up here: it is equal and opposite. Newton's Third Law describes the interaction for force pairs, and the specific, exact reaction is stated as equal and opposite. Second, his law doesn't prove that there are no random actions. Even if you want to argue semantics on this, the point can be conceded without consequence, because doing so certainly doesn't have any application to your conclusion: everything is pre-programmed. Everything certainly is not. If you want to argue it is, you'll need something that actually supports the conclusion. Newton's Third Law isn't it. Third, Newton's Third Law has nothing to do with neurons firing. Fourth, you still do not understand how neurons work. The moral of the story here is please don't try to science without proper adult supervision. You're not mentally equipped for it. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't characterize it as bold or a sign of increased strength. ISIS has had rocket launchers for a long time. And their goal is to take over the "infidels", which is the rest of the world! Eventually they were going to actively attack a government military. This may be the beginning of the end. Any of the major military forces in the world could demolish ISIS in very quick time, it's just a matter of not starting that war until ISIS comes knocking on the door, causing havoc, such that there's no choice but to defend he world against their barbaric ideology.
I don't think it's a question of being militarily stronger; any formal army on Earth can easily outgun them. It's a question of being able to engage them. The guerrilla style warfare makes it quite hard to fight them for a prolonged period of time. They attack is small numbers, in urban areas. What's interesting here (and why I say the attack is bold) is they didn't target defenseless civilians, as they are prone to do, but a warship capable of immediately engaging them. That they still succeeded in blowing up the ship is somewhat surprising then. |
|
|
|
Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.
When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations. What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science? Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do. No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author. |
|
|
|
Isn't it illegal to sell organs (even at cost of obtaining them) from babies?
It is illegal to sell organs for profit. The gray area is reimbursement for cost of obtaining or transporting. If there is profiteering here, it is illegal. Given the video, I think there is sufficient reason to investigate so the question can be answered definitively. Why should some organs cost more than others? Based on the video it sounds like pretty much the same amount of work, but certain organs are worth more? 30 to 100 dollars? One organ can cost 3 times what another one costs? Does it seem like it is 3 times as difficult? They're not talking about the price of organs. You'd have to be pretty untethered to reality to think that you could purchase organs for 30-100 dollars. |
|
|
|
It's not clear yet they're breaking laws, but that's the point of the investigation.
However some of the things being posted since are flat out wrong.
They sell human organs to the highest bidder.
Do you have anything to substantiate that? Some people are trying to spin this as selling organs for profit "to the highest bidder," which would clearly be illegal. If this is happening, prosecution needs to follow. However, I doubt this is the case. I doubt the people who shot this undercover video even think this is the case.
If PP is providing organs to biotech companies or other research organizations at cost of obtaining them from otherwise legal abortions, an investigation needs to happen to make sure all applicable laws being followed, but that's quite not the picture some are trying to spin this into with inaccurate and unsubstantiated rhetoric like the kind posted above.
Isn't it illegal to sell organs (even at cost of obtaining them) from babies? They say fetuses are not really humans yet, but they're selling them as human parts? Don't you think it should be illegal if the patient has NO IDEA what's going on? We have to check mark that we are donors on our licenses or else they cannot use them, isn't it even more important that a women should have to agree to have their babies organs used before she's dead? You know those organs are part hers, they were IN her. ^^Context^^ Response: Isn't it illegal to sell organs (even at cost of obtaining them) from babies?
It is illegal to sell organs for profit. The gray area is reimbursement for cost of obtaining or transporting. If there is profiteering here, it is illegal. Given the video, I think there is sufficient reason to investigate so the question can be answered definitively. They say fetuses are not really humans yet, but they're selling them as human parts? Don't you think it should be illegal if the patient has NO IDEA what's going on? We have to check mark that we are donors on our licenses or else they cannot use them, isn't it even more important that a women should have to agree to have their babies organs used before she's dead? You know those organs are part hers, they were IN her.
PP says all donations are made with full consent of the mother. This is an obviously easy thing to verify, since there will be paper records indicating consent was given. So at this time, there is no reason to believe "the patient has NO IDEA what's going on."Was PP explicit about the selling of baby parts or was the explanation buried under legalese? In any case if this whole scandal goes nowhere and the DOJ does not take the case then it will be a legal precedent to sell baby parts on the market, no matter what pp calls it. That's not how legal precedents work, and the belief that this will translate into a 'baby parts market' is rooted in hysteria, not reality. |
|
|
|
CAIRO — An Egyptian navy vessel was targeted on Thursday by militants affiliated with the Islamic State group, who claimed they destroyed it with a rocket while it was anchored off the Sinai peninsula's Mediterranean coast. Egyptian military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mohammed Samir said the vessel caught fire in an exchange of fire with "terrorists" on the shore and that there were no fatalities among its crew members. He did not say how much damage the vessel suffered and gave no details on the type of ship or the size of its crew. However, security officials said an unspecified number of crew members suffered injuries from the fire and that several of them jumped overboard to escape the raging fire.  ... The attack on the ship is the first of its kind by the IS affiliate in Egypt, representing a qualitative evolvement in the military capabilities of the group, whose campaign of violence has been mostly restricted to the northern part of Sinai bordering Gaza and Israel. Its claim of responsibility for Thursday's attack on the vessel is the second in as many days for major operations, or attempted ones. Full Article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/egyptian-navy-vessel-targeted-by-militants-off-sinais-coast/ar-AAd2W0G?ocid=ansnewsap11#image=1Pretty bold. |
|
|
|
The taxpayers from Greece paid 664.331 billions euros to Germans usurers-criminals-thieves from 1991 to 2011.  Kinda sounds like that was their fault for borrowing money in the first place and agreeing to those terms. When you don't have your house in order, you're a desperate borrower and don't have much bargaining power. The brilliant part about being fiscally responsible is that there are no usurers-criminals-thieves to pay back. |
|
|
|
WASHINGTON — The brother of Ethel Rosenberg, who was a star trial witness against his sister and brother-in-law in a sensational Cold War atomic spying case, never implicated his sister in an earlier appearance before a grand jury and said that they had never discussed her role "at all," according to secret court records unsealed Wednesday. The revelation may heighten public suspicion that Ethel Rosenberg was wrongly convicted and executed in an espionage case that captivated the country at the height of the McCarthy-era frenzy about Communist allegiances. Rosenberg and her husband Julius were put to death in 1953 after being convicted of conspiring to pass secrets about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union, though they maintained their innocence until the end. Historians and lawyers who reviewed the transcript said it appears to lend support to both sides of a dueling narrative — that Ethel Rosenberg was framed in an overzealous prosecution even as her husband appears to have played a central role in a sophisticated spy ring. ... Greenglass, who was indicted as a co-conspirator and was himself sentenced to 10 years in prison, said at trial that he had given the Rosenbergs research data that he had obtained while working as an Army machinist at the Los Alamos, New Mexico headquarters of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. In especially damaging testimony, he recalled seeing his older sister transcribing handwritten notes to give to the Soviets on a portable typewriter at the Rosenbergs' New York apartment in 1945. But the grand jury records show no mention of the typing. Decades after the trial, Greenglass was quoted by a New York Times journalist as having admitted to lying at trial about his sister in order to protect his wife. In a May decision that ordered the records unsealed, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein noted that Greenglass said in his new statements that it was likely his wife, Ruth Greenglass — rather than Ethel Rosenberg — who typed up the notes that were passed to the Soviets. Full Article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/testimony-from-rosenberg-brother-released-in-famous-spy-case/ar-AAd1e7G?ocid=ansnewsap11Overzealous prosecution, most likely. But I wonder if this guy lived with much guilt over the next 60 years for giving false testimony that got his sister executed. That's one cold bastard. |
|
|
|
Moral superiority:
Sharia law - the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia is only applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state"
Sharia is only applicable to Muslims... Is that so?
Let's say it is. Is this terribly (or partially) relevant for some reason? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
