Reaper

You know something, given the amount of stupidity that has been going on in this sub-forum for the past year and a half or so, spouted by all those self proclaimed "skeptics", I'd thought I would try something different. I'm going to argue from the viewpoint of the deni--err, skeptic!!!! ======================================================= Well, gee, you just know this whole global warming thing is a complete crock. I mean, the predictions are most likely going to be wrong. There is no possible way the ocean levels will rise by 2 meters over the next century or so, or that the average temperature will rise by more than a degree! After all, we can't even predict the weather!!! How then can we possibly predict what the climate will be 100 years from now? The models are very complex, too complex for computers to handle. Therefore, I don't think the models can be trusted. Also, there are many mistakes that have been made already! Which I will list later when I have more time... Oh, and if you think I'm wrong, well here is a comprehensive "source" that supports my doubts: http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2007/02/20/why_global_warming_is_a_crock.php

Oh, Pangloss, you know better than to argue with a bunch of idiots . Given the statements that have been flying around here for the past 4 pages or so, I'm surprised that some of them even know how to operate a keyboard properly...

Private interests/transactions can choose to not accept that kind of payment (e.g. key store, carriage ride, restaurants, etc.), depending on the circumstances. Otherwise, for them to refuse the payment is a federal crime on their part (especially for banks or in public transactions of ANY kind)....

You mean that you don't find this thread in the least bit amusing? On the side note, I think I should show you the reality of the situation:

Have any of you read, or own, "On the Shoulders of Giants" by Stephen Hawking. This book differs from most of his written works in that instead of talking about string theory and other troubles with unifying all of physics, he instead talks about past scientists and all the landmark books/written works that have contributed to our understanding of the universe today. The 5 scientists he talks about are Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein. And the book is basically a compilation of their original works, as they wrote them back in the day. All works that ultimately gave birth to physics and the modern understanding of our universe in general. It is one of the only books that he doesn't leave out equations, as they were part of the original manuscripts. Haven't delved too far into the book yet (its 1200 pages long and I'm only on page 20), but it's a very good read so far and is very captivating, as you get to see how they came up with their ideas in the first place. So, who else has read/own this book?

Here's a video of people paying with pennies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsz__5aium0 Enjoy

To add on to what IA said above: We really can't directly detect most subatomic particles because they are much too small, or decay much too quickly, or have too much energy, etc. All we can reliably detect are photons or electrons. What happens most of the time is that we can infer their existence, by observing the effects and events that go on inside the particle accelerator. If a given effect is observed at a specific energy level, then we know that it must be due to some particle...

Ah, ok I see what you are saying. That wasn't clear before. But I was not advocating demonizing other people, but rather that they should just suck it up, just like all the other times when we started giving back rights to the other minorities. Although, not demonizing people doesn't mean that you sympathize with their position (MLK didn't actually sympathize with their position, what he did was to make it clear that it (prejudice) was wrong. But at the same time he was willing to forgive. That ultimately was the main difference between him and the black panthers...). Ultimately, their prejudices (or lack of them) are their own business. But it has no place in the court of law, and in a society that claims itself to be free and just. You have to remember that prejudices take a great deal longer to go away, and that is why protection from the majority is necessary from time to time. It wasn't until the 1980's (or the 90's in some cases) before racism was universally frowned upon on in every nation, even though the civil rights movement happened in the 60's. Sometimes the law has to come before the consensus, as is the case right now with same sex couples... Since when has a ban on same sex marriage ever had a secular basis? The only ones I could find was this one,and even that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. None of the reasons do, and Proposition 8 was overwhelmingly due to religious reasons...

I wasn't aware of his past records.... ah well, I don't really pay any attention to politics in general.

It's amazing the number of self-proclaimed "experts" there are willing to interpret the data the wrong way to support their B.S. assumptions. But hey, why do a rigorous statistical analysis when you can just simply look at what other non-experts, charlatans, think-tanks, and corporate/political interests are saying and make conclusions based off of that?

Have you guys ever seen the movie W? It explores some of why the Bush administration was totally inept. I don't think Bush lied, but rather that he was just stupid.

It's basically shorthand for "Begging the Question"; you are already assuming some proposition to be true though you are trying to prove it. It doesn't add any real insight to the discussion, or to mathematical proofs.

Well, I asked virtually the same question in the previous page, and look what happened . This is another one of SkepticLance's threads, where he rules and the rest of us who dare to object are dragged into his personal Fantasy Land where the rules of logic do not apply...

Yeah, that's pretty much it. General Relativity says that gravity is due to the geometry of space-time itself (and that objects with mass cause this warping), while gravitons are still hypothetical particles in quantum mechanics. So far, there is much evidence to support Relativity's description of gravity.

Since when have the signing of laws, or the abolition thereof, didn't go in that direction anyway? If you go down into the deep South there are still quite a few people who don't believe in racial equality. There are still untold numbers of people who don't believe in women's rights either, or in religious tolerance. But the fact that the majority hasn't supported that didn't stop us from enforcing those laws anyway. I'm quite surprised that almost no one on this site actually understands this, but one of the main goals of the constitution was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Whether or not the majority either don't support it, or are indifferent to it (where I mostly stand on this issue BTW), is a moot point. It is best not to appeal to majority rules or to partisan allegiances when trying to decide on people's rights. The question over here really is, do you actually think we should deny same sex couples the right, or the recognition of marriage on principle? If not, then the support of Prop. 8 (or trying to defend those who do support it) speaks of hypocrisy, while if you do then you are forced to ask yourself why you are concerned with the affairs of other people in the first place...

They have been desensitized and they are just simply too cynical at this point. Corruption among our policy makers has been on the increase since at least the Watergate scandal, and I don't think the situation is going to improve anytime soon. At least, not until huge impeding doom is eminent (such as what is going to happen in the Great Market Crash of 2009...)

If IQ's are meaningless, then what does it mean for a person with an IQ of 50 cannot take care of his/herself. And this is very well documented, that people with lower IQ's learn much more slowly and lack self-help skills in general....

Be careful, choosing legal laws in society aren't like deciding which scientific laws are true, Mr.Skeptic. Unlike science, marriage and religions and cultural norms are entirely human constructs; they have no meaning beyond what we as a society give them. The burden of proof need not apply in such discussions...

Oh sure it can, just like all the other times. The problem is, these global warming deniers are just like cockroaches. We keep squishing and they keep coming. It's pathetic.

Oh, but bascule, surely you are aware of proof by repetition, aren't you ? Certainly if you repeat it enough times some truth might come out of it!

I like how SkepticLance just continues to hand wave away all of the rather obvious problems inherent with global warming. Just like all the other times when he hand waved all of the problems of the positions he tends to side with in general. But then, I guess he doesn't want anybody here to crap all over his parade, given the number of failures before this thread...

I've been standing on the sidelines for a while, because personally I really could care less about what goes on in this and most other threads in the politics forums in general. But are you seriously suggesting that granting the right of marriage to same sex couples will lead to another civil war? Or some other dire consequence akin to the universe blowing up? First of all, things were vastly different back in 1860; the military wasn't nearly as centralized and loyalties among them were divided. The sense of nationalism back in the 1860's wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. As well, it was the onset of the Industrial Revolution, so the means of production weren't as of yet exclusive to the factories; as such the advantage provided by industrialization wasn't yet large enough for the North to just simply squash the South... In contrast, any state stupid enough to try to secede from the union today would mostly likely get blown off the face of the Earth; there is just simply no way for any state to get anybody of military importance on their side. In fact in this day and age the SWAT team and the National Guard is much better armed than the armies of the 1860's.... If anything, abolishing anti-gay laws will probably just be like the abolition of Jim Crow laws; you will certainly get a lot of whining from the conservatives (indeed, they have whined about everything ranging from granting women and minorities more rights to the teaching of evolution in schools), but ultimately 10-15 years down the road everybody will just move on and live with it. I mean seriously guys its not that bad. The U.S. won't collapse, galaxies won't explode, and most of all the backlash isn't going to be as dire as you all are making it out to be. I can't see why we just won't simply abolish all anti-gay/lesbian laws and just get over this trivial non-issue already....

I thought you might be interested in this little video here. While it doesn't talk about coal, it does go over the problems with our energy grid in general: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taDlgxlXON8&feature=related

Maybe his bed just has a high amount of static charge, what exactly do you use as sheets? I can guarantee you that what ever it is, it's not from the floor...

I don't think that's a good idea at all, given what goes on in the environmental and political debate threads.