mistermack

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

mistermack last won the day on November 11 2018

mistermack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

105 Excellent

About mistermack

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evolution

Recent Profile Visitors

7385 profile views
  1. What I get from your aggressive moderation is a biased intention to stifle my posting on the subject. I could paralyse the thread if I demanded citations for every claim made. I'm not that passionate about it. If you want to kill the debate, you just had your way. Over and out.
  2. Your summary isn't warranted by the article which by the way has all the hallmarks of a study set up to arrive at a certain conclusion, but even so, they say this : This is all hypothetical, and it will take years of experimentation to determine how much of an effect the phytotransferrin-carbonate connection will have on ocean productivity,” cautions McQuaid. “Interestingly, the rapid injection of CO2 in the atmosphere has been tied to several of the earth’s mass extinction events, and these extinctions manifest themselves with particular intensity in the marine environment. Even that statement is deliberately misleading. They want you to conclude that CO2 was the cause of the extinctions, not a result of the cause, which can be volcanic or large impact or both. This is what bugs me about climate scientists/activists. They never miss a chance to give a false impression. Because they KNOW that they won't get ridiculed for it by their peers.
  3. mistermack

    Mediocre in science

    Of course it does. Climate science is ready and waiting. It can even get you a Nobel Prize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
  4. Quite right. Have a Nobel Prize. Have you ever noticed though, that you don't keep getting hotter and hotter under your blanket? (Hint: temp magically levels off !!)
  5. The name doesn't ring a bell. In any case, I've never been anybody's acolyte, so the answer is no. As far as climate change goes, I think that the alarmist faction has a funny fixed idea of a world of "scientists" and "deniers". I personally am perfectly happy to acknowledge that of course CO2 has a well known greenhouse action. What I deny is all of the bullshit that goes with it, that computer models can accurately forecast climate over decades, that CO2 has caused one degree of warming, ( a big fat lie that's constantly repeated) and that warming will only ever have disastrous consequences, if it does happen. So yes, CO2 does catch some escaping heat energy. But NO, it doesn't trap it, as is constantly claimed. It re-emits it. What happens after that isn't accurately known. If it was, climate could be accurately forecast. It's mind-bogglingly arrogant to say that we can't identify an upcoming 18 year halt to warming, but we can confidently forecast the climate for the end of the century. I can't believe how people buy into that crap.
  6. Ok, since it went over your head, I cite the notorious hockey stick. (that never was) that's been lied about and air brushed ever since. And Al Gore, who got the Nobel prize for lying and bullshitting. Especially his choice "never mind the details" when he tried to con the world that the CO2 graph was leading the temperature graph, instead of the other way around. In any case, it's in the nature of the process of misrepresenting climate, that it's done surreptitiously. The request for citations is a bit like denying that the mafia still exists by demanding details of what they're up to. It's easy to give a false picture, without blatant lying. I've already mentioned how it's done, if one cared to read my post. You're just selective about what you use, and what you don't.
  7. Hockey sticks to you, and your citations.
  8. mistermack

    Did Einstein's God differ from Hawking's God?

    You're conveniently selective with your evidence. You obviously ignore the mountains of similar but opposite evidence. I see that kind of reasoning as a self-induced stupidity. Not born, but acquired. Sort of deliberate blindness.
  9. There may be a bit of oxygen in the Mars atmosphere, and CO2 as well. But there's plenty lacking in life support. Warmth is the first to come to mind. The AVERAGE temperature on Mars is colder than the average winter temperature at the South Pole. And you won't find large life forms thriving there. In fact Mars is far more hostile than Antarctica in winter, because it doesn't have weather blowing in from milder climes. It also gets about half the sunlight, but far more harmful radiation, like cosmic rays and solar wind, because it doesn't have an equivalent to the Earth's magnetic field. or thick atmosphere. And there are no oceans beneath the sand. There's ice, lots of it, but no liquid oceans. The chances of big animals that don't need oxygen or warmth existing on Mars are near enough zero.
  10. mistermack

    Did Einstein's God differ from Hawking's God?

    To be honest, what Einstein or Hawking thought is an irrelevant bit of gossipy history to me. If they were both staunch deists or theists, it wouldn't influence my thinking in the slightest. On the other hand, if the smelly old man in the library showed me a bit of genuine evidence for a god, I'd be highly interested. Still waiting.
  11. mistermack

    stem cells = leather = shoes

    There are lots of products that would come before shoes, in the list of priorities. A nice hairy scalp, for baldies. New skin for burns victims. Cosmetic enhancements. Bigger boobs and willies. Leather is gradually losing out in shoe manufacture anyway. And people will still eat beef and lamb, so the raw materials for leather would probably just go to waste, if there was a cheaper alternative.
  12. mistermack

    Did Einstein's God differ from Hawking's God?

    My bias is towards things supported by what I see as good evidence. I'm happy to examine contrary evidence, and change my bias, if I find it convincing. That's nothing unique to me, but it's different to most indoctrinated people. To be honest, I think Einstein just didn't want the label atheist. And maybe it was a wise move, in his day. Maybe still is, if you don't want to get involved. Your wiki link says it all really in on sentence : "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[
  13. mistermack

    Tell Me

    Yeh, I included the Canadian provinces in my memorising, and they have Prince Edward Island as their Rhode Island. You can hardly see them on the map. But amazingly, Prince Edward Island grows about a third of Canada's potatoes !! Massachusetts I find quite easy, there is a Gloucester there and I live in the original Gloucester. Maryland is a pig of a state, it's all over the place. Delaware was difficult to memorise, till I noticed it's just below New Jersey, so I used the old song, " what did Della wear boys?" to aid the memory. Nebraska was hard too, it's a state you never hear anything about.
  14. mistermack

    Did Einstein's God differ from Hawking's God?

    No it doesn't, and it's not, in my case. It's exactly a word thing. If Einstein agreed with your wording, and agreed that he complied with it, then he would qualify as religious as mentioned in those words. Other people would disagree that those words meant someone was religious. In other words, would disagree that that kind of feeling was a religious feeling. So it's about the word religion. And practically everyone has their own feeling for what it means. Some are more clearly defined than others, that's all.
  15. mistermack

    Did Einstein's God differ from Hawking's God?

    I'd be like Hawking, but a bit more sedentary.