USA becoming whatever they want as long as they stop sending troops all around the world.

Yeah it's just religious TECSHARE in fact.
Shame those two are homophobic dudes they would be great together xD

My thoughts exactly.

This kind of challenge is basically useless. Why draging it on a month? Your main chance is to get addicted to the feeling and come back to gamble more.

Moreover, contrary to what most people think it's better to make one huge bet than 10000 small bets. The odds are the same of course, but the variance makes it more likely for a player to win with one big bet than with tons of small ones.

Ahahahah

Well honestly I didn't expect much.
Most of those sites know they have few chances to get a good marketshare so they're not even trying for real.
They take an existing script, put a different design and say "hey we invented something new come and see by yourself" hoping some dudes will actually bet here...

Damn man if he's willing to take the money out of US military I'm all in to support him building 3 walls, a sea border and funding a South army dedicated to boarder surveillance.

If that means US stays in US, I think the rest of the world would gladly fund that wall for you in fact.

And wait for the denial.

Option 1: "I don't have time to explain your own political goal to you, this is completely out of the subject"
Option 2: "Stop dodging the discussion and actually try to provide some proof of your stupid belief"
Option 3: "And here is against the leftist with their [pick your logical fallacy] again"

I'd bet option 2, but that's just my guess.

Macron doesn't give a damn and he'd be right to.

What can happen? Yellow vest movement is dead and he's not afraid of anything. People from everywhere are screaming "no violence" and most of the violent protestors have been arrested already. When someone acts like the boxer champion who took out 4 policemen alone, everyone is yelling "he shouldn't be violent", "violence isn't the answer".

Well guess what dipshit? If violence isn't the answer and you want no violence then government has nothing to fear.

Moreover France has been a dictatorship since 2016 with the end of the separation of the 3 powers, Macron can arrests whoever he wants without any reason and send him to 10 years jails without having to justify himself. And he will, what does he has to lose?

Stop thinking about France as a democracy where the leader has to play smart. France is an elective dictatorship where the leader does whatever he wants for 5 years without risking anything.

Our ancestors where revolutionnaries but today French are just sheeps. Let them die already.

Lol I think we have the answer we were looking for.

The guy thinks Earth is 6000 years old, what do you want to discuss with someone like him? xD

Less ridiculous than considering science is built through empirical data I hope.

What do you do when a blind man is saying you're wrong about the color of a picture? Do you have any idea how exhausting it is to explain to a child something while he's denying it simply because he decided he won't listen? This is exactly what's happening here.

You have the balls to claim a worldwide scientific consensus is false and based on unscientific evidences and reasonning while thousands of studies and professionnals have diligently digged up the subject.

You're the one claiming 94% of the scientist of our planet are wrong about what science is about.

How ridiculous is that?

You talk about it being a cult while you refuse to act any near to a scientifical way. You refuse evidences that are considered as accurate and satisfactory by pretty much anyone without justifying yourselves. Then you refuse to answer what evidence you would consider admissible because "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim".

How ridiculous is that?

If you weren't in a country where a degree needs to go in debt maybe you would have had the occasion to actually go to school and educate yourself. Then maybe you wouldn't say such nonsense as "empirical data is the core of science" which is both false and an insult to all the scientists.

But hey, I'm the one who is ridiculous I guess?

Though I'm not the one acting exactly like a religious fanatic saying "but where is the proof that god doesn't exist?" Because that's what you're doing here. "Where is the empirical proof linking CO2, human activities and climate change?" is not a valid question simply because there can't be a proof. You ask for empirical data, "not theory, not simulation, real data" well guess what? The only way to obtain such data would be to clone our universe and observe it without humans.

So either educate yourself or stop trying to act like scientist. You're fanatics, not scientists, and you're acting EXACTLY like flat earthers or evolution denyers.
-> going against a global scientific consensus without pointing at scientific incoherences
-> refusing evidences without any reasons
-> claiming those evidences are "not enough" exactly like evolution denyers asks for "the missing link"
-> refusing to say "this evidence would convince me" because you know damn well there would be someone to find it considering the amount of work done in the field.

How ridiculous is that?

Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that.
There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course.

But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well...

And you're completely right.

But the problem here is that you're missing the numbers.
One Carbon dating isn't reliable. But when we date a specie, a fossile or something, we don't have only one carbon dating. We say "this specie existed 30 millions of years ago" because we dated 500 different fossile each of them 20 to 30 times and the average result seems to be 30 millions years.

That's not a one time problem, we don't have only one subject of experiment. We have thousands of fossiles all in differents shapes and states, each of them giving informations depending on where they are found, what does the environment look like...

The result is a compilation, it can't be false unless all those experiments are all false in the same average direction. That would be completely crazy.

Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.

Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?

I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.

Please then what would be a solid proof?

Well indeed.

But we have some elements that are old enough to be dated with carbon14 and that are of a date we know. Ceramics for example, from mesopotian era. We know how old they are and carbon14 dating is giving the same thing so...

You can also do it by combining different dating methodologies. If all dating methodologies give the same result, what are the chances that they're ALL wrong at the same time but still give the same "wrong" date?

I find it especially true with online BTC gambling after a bit more of thinking.

It's not the case for real life casino as there is lots of process (actually going to the casino and all) and the odds are really low. But online gambling is both easy and with high odds so it's really easy to just get addicted to it.

Cool cool cool...

I guess you wouldn't have any trouble going fully public on who you are, where is your company based and so on then?
I mean if you're in the business since 1999 (20 years of experience) you sure don't want people to believe you could be an asshole trying to scam them right? Best would be to fully disclosed personnal informations and your previous experiences so we know you're not just lying

Well it's easy:

-If half life measurement is right then it means datation is right?
-If half life measurement is false it means we misunderstood how radioactivity works right?

Then how comes radioactivity works perfectly in all the millions of way we're using it daily (especially on medical field) for scanners, IRM, radiology, radiation therapy and all?

We know it's accurate because if it was not it would mean we understood badly radiation and we couldn't use it as precisely as we are doing right now.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

you mean apart from the basic way radiology works? Oo

Carbon dating is accurate as hell and I can't really see how you can say otherwise.

By the way it's not Carbon dating that is used for prehistoric dating, Carbon dating allows you to go back in time to less than a million years if I remember correctly.

But radioactive dating is extremely precise simply because of the way it works...

There is an amount X of each radioactive elements in everything. Once it's dead and underground this radioactive element stop being produced. So when you want to date it, you count the amount of radioactive element and thus you know how much is missing. Since you know what times it take to get rid of the radioactive element you can date it...

That's extremely simple, what is the problem for you with it?

Ok well I did my best but you really don't want to try and read. You just build your own walls and I can't do much against that...

Do you agree on the fact that matter is made of atoms?

How do you think this theory was created? Where do you think it comes from? Empirical data?
Absolutely not.
Because there was no data... The technical means of the 19th century didn't allow John Dalton to imagine experiments. There was no experiments! He just imagined a theory and it answered some good questions, seemed logical, had no counter examples.

You seem to believe science is either "proven" or "not proven" but that's not the case... I don't know how to tell you otherwise: it doesn't work that way. That's all.


EDIT: To be clear.
If there is an experiment to test your theory then empirical data is essential.
If there is no experiment to test your theory, then empirical data is meaningless but it doesn't mean the theory is.

Is it easy enough to understand like this?

Absolutely not.

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities. That's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying there is no empirical data backing global warming theories.

I'll try to turn the table a bit.

What would you consider a reasonnable proof?

This is simply false.

Serious question coming.

I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology.

I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research?