....
So could any Trump supporter explain me why he could make a good POTUS? ....
Yes we can! Yes we can! mmm mmm mmm And if you don't remember those chants, those are the chants you corrupted European pussies had for your American Idol, Obama. Spendulus, as useful as usual  |
|
|
|
Its good that big name people and celebrities are able to stand up for gay rights. I think its about time that people embrace the change
Dude, seems to me you haven't even read the Op... What's strange though is that you're not a sig spammer as you have no sig... I'll bet on a genuine mistake so please follow this link to understand how wrong you are! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekk9DIt8doc |
|
|
|
If I understand well, open bazar is just a P2P eshop platform? The only difference with things like ebay is that you can pay in btc? |
|
|
|
Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[21] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[17][22][23][24] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (Ł77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[25] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[26] You are wasting your time replying to either retards or scammers. Just saying... That's a possibility. But there is a problem with those scammers: they keep posting. It means this thread is often on the top even if we don't answer. And they spread hoaxes and false data. So I prefer keeping posting my quote on every freaking page if it means the people who will click here randomly don't fall in their trap!  |
|
|
|
Now someone will ask, but those people didn't done anything wrong yet?
Yes but they have mental disorder and their illness can harm other people. So if they dont want to spend their best time in mental institutions better cooperate.
If they cooperate and takes some prescription medicine they can enjoy freedom.
If medicines don't help at all they must consider chemical castration.
Those poor souls in mental institutions nobody ask if they want to stay there or not.
Well maybe in your barbaric country... But in the civilized world it's not possible to send someone in a psychatric institute without any proof! So it means that we should find proofs of them being pedophiles... And how do you do that? |
|
|
|
If someone have some problems he must seek help for himself.
Symptoms can be known to person so he must admit himself he has a problem. He must go to doctor and psychiatrist.
If he know he have problems and don't react he must be encouraged to do so.
If he dont realize himself he probably enjoy it and he is dangerous.
Those person must be "marked" somehow as every other person with mental illness especially if they can harm other people.
Damned man, you seriously mean that? You want everyone to get "marked" for mental disorder? And on which assumption? How and who will decide that someone must be marked? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin halving is already priced in. Bitcoin total supply is 21 million everyone knows that so all future halvings are priced in.
Ethereum will grow market cap as bitcoin stagnates. Hopefully the chinese miners go bust after halving which should do bitcoin a favour.
no the bitcoin halving is not priced in anymore, because the diff doubled basically, it was priced in when the diff was 70B now 140B+ so there is the need for another increase for the miners, to have the same profit as before Ok would you care to detail a bit? I didn't understand you at all xD What's the diff? He is a fucking idiot. Bitcoin halving is priced in. Difficulty is just a function of the number of miners. Just means they will be even more fucked when the halving happens. Buy ethereum guys. yeah sure keep insulting for no reason when you're wrong, difficult increase by 2x so it means that miners are earning right now exactly the same they were earning at 2xx price with 70B difficulty all this mean that we need another 2x increase to face the halving without another 2x increase in the diff, otherwise will be pointless.... Or we'll just see a difficulty decrease! It wouldn't be a bad thing in itself no? I mean what's the point of high difficulty for non miners? |
|
|
|
Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.
I thought guns were here to protect you?
I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation. It's all caused by pet tigers. Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant? Do you do everything like this in your life too? Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT!Your words negate your argument. You are only saying "I'd Like" the correlation to be causation. You have not proved it or even tried to. Therefore, my "pet tigers" argument is equally good. I don't get the impression you even know how to equate correlation to causation. Hint: It's NOT DONE by stating an opinion.... So there is no link between gun accessibility and crime rates for you? That's what you're implying by denying the correlation I raised between those two factors? |
|
|
|
Information postHere is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it. Please feel free to not blindly trust me but follow the links. You'll see it appear they just made plain lies and can't admit it. Unless you understand "the increase went from 0.17 to 0.11 which is not understood by our models and is interesting" as "there is no longer increase and a pause". Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.phpOf course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins! Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them. First source: http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0Do they talk about a pause in temperature? "The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures. That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid. Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14." Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down... Let's check the second source: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2. The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3. “Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Nińos, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City." Damn no pause here either! Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?
|
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen your attention please!
Seems like as usual Spendulus and Wilikon are using shameful methods to convince you. As usual they give out no scientific sources but rather biased blog posts, and as usual it seems that if you look a bit more precisely, the blog posts are wrong and misinterpret willingly their sources.
There is no "pause" in the last decades. There is a slow down in climate warming. Which IS interesting and lead the scientist to question their models!
I'm not saying there is no problem with current predictions or climate models! Of course there must be, climate is something too complicated to be perfectly predicted.
I'm saying climate change is real and every scientist agree with this. No data shows a "global cooling". No data shows a "pause".
Don't simply trust what Spendulus and Wilikon posts and take 5 minutes to go further. Then you'll see their claims are based on nothing but pitiful lies.
Denier. Admit it, you denier. Ahah ^^ Thanks for explaining nothing again. Your link to an article blog was totally flawed. You claim there is a "pause" and that everyone admits it and we go to your sources they talk about a "less important increase in temperature". How do you transform this in a pause seriously? You're simply pointing a text saying "the temperature increases less than what we expect but still increases" and you go yelling "I WAS RIGHT THERE IS A PAUSE". What's the logic here? |
|
|
|
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer
You're perfectly right. Find the error. Criticize it. But willingly misinterpret clear words? It's not criticizing. It's plain lies. |
|
|
|
So now they come clean — sort of. Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming. “The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.” “Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said. http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/So they are deniers too now?
Absolutely not. If you would be kind enough to read my posts above you would see that the current models are challenged because the global warming is not fast enough. It doesn't mean there is a "pause" in temperature rise, absolutely not. It just means that temperature rises is on average lower than what was expected. Which means models are not correct? Of course they're not! How could they be? Climate is far too complex to be modelized perfectly! But temperature is still rising whatever the climate change denyers are saying. |
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen your attention please!
Seems like as usual Spendulus and Wilikon are using shameful methods to convince you. As usual they give out no scientific sources but rather biased blog posts, and as usual it seems that if you look a bit more precisely, the blog posts are wrong and misinterpret willingly their sources.
There is no "pause" in the last decades. There is a slow down in climate warming. Which IS interesting and lead the scientist to question their models!
I'm not saying there is no problem with current predictions or climate models! Of course there must be, climate is something too complicated to be perfectly predicted.
I'm saying climate change is real and every scientist agree with this. No data shows a "global cooling". No data shows a "pause".
Don't simply trust what Spendulus and Wilikon posts and take 5 minutes to go further. Then you'll see their claims are based on nothing but pitiful lies.
It is a good thing we can all agree this could apply to you too. Of course and if you find any mistake in my speech please state them so I can correct my reasoning. But since the beginning it seems you keep spreading false statements and ignore the questions or proofs I come with. |
|
|
|
Did anyone read Deadzone from Stephan King?
The whole book is about a man getting the power to see the future and he gonna try to stop a man racing for president because he's a fucking psycho and the worst possible choice ever.
Trump reminds me greatly of this man, same lack of any kind of quality but same dumb people voting for him...
What? Trump reminds you of Obama? What about Obama reminds you about a psycho? What do you even blame Obama for? |
|
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen your attention please!
Seems like as usual Spendulus and Wilikon are using shameful methods to convince you. As usual they give out no scientific sources but rather biased blog posts, and as usual it seems that if you look a bit more precisely, the blog posts are wrong and misinterpret willingly their sources.
There is no "pause" in the last decades. There is a slow down in climate warming. Which IS interesting and lead the scientist to question their models!
I'm not saying there is no problem with current predictions or climate models! Of course there must be, climate is something too complicated to be perfectly predicted.
I'm saying climate change is real and every scientist agree with this. No data shows a "global cooling". No data shows a "pause".
Don't simply trust what Spendulus and Wilikon posts and take 5 minutes to go further. Then you'll see their claims are based on nothing but pitiful lies.
|
|
|
|
Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.phpOf course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins! Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them. First source: http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0Do they talk about a pause in temperature? "The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures. That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid. Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14." Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down... Let's check the second source: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2. The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3. “Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Nińos, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City." Damn no pause here either! Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is? |
|
|
|
Lol, the link is right there.
I know it's hard to stomach.
Your high priest has admitted what I've been saying since 2006 - and what's been common knowledge for about four years.
Do not worry he is still your high priest. You can follow him where ever he leads. Even when he loudly proclaims there is Global Cooling Now.
ROFL....
Oh ok I didn't understand that the post of Wilikon had absolutely no use, I thought he was talking about another article  First thing first Spendulus, seems like you believe we got like "High priest" or whatever. I don't even know who this guy is. The fact is that as 99% of scientists agree on climate change, contrary to climate change denyers we don't need to have a personal high priest  Second, I took a look at the article and... Do you even read bro? They're never talking about a pause! They're talking about a slow down! Oh well no, your article is talking about a pause, then if you go to the sources of the article, they're only talking about a slow down! You're just a liar as all climate change denyers that interpret data just the way they want without ever confronting reality ^^ |
|
|
|
Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.
I thought guns were here to protect you?
I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation. It's all caused by pet tigers. Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant? Do you do everything like this in your life too? Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT! |
|
|
|
You can't rely on kids "he will find his path" they are confused and that's why we have
parents to guide us and help us till we grow up. Kids must not be confused while they growing up.
And who are you to decide what confuses them or not? What is in the "it gonna confuse kids" column and what is in the "it's ok for my kids" column? Kids must be taught how things are. From an objective perspective. An objective perspective would be to explain them what sex is and that it can be between two persons of the same sex though it's a minority compared to two persons of different sex. |
|
|
|
I agree this is against human nature.
Great. Cool. So why are animals doing it? Humans are above animals. We are apes. Don't believe every lie public school socialists tell you AH OK!!! You're just another shitty creationnist dumbass ^^ Please people, don't stop here, we've got another idiot believing that God created humans and that the multiple proofs of evolution have been created by Satan in order to make us doubt God. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
