Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Congressman: Well, if humans are the cause of global warming, then how did dinosaurs go extinct? Checkmate   ( thinkprogress.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, global warming, extinction of the dinosaurs, NCA, climate change denial  
•       •       •

2876 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2014 at 6:54 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-09 11:10:18 PM  
Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:

It was because Adric never learned to type.

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-09 11:11:17 PM  

WI241TH: mrshowrules: Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.

So we should study it out?

I studied it out and all I found was the National Park Service describing the effects climate change is having there ...


They used to have this there before they realized it debunks the climate hoaxers:

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html
 
2014-06-09 11:11:23 PM  
Zeppelininthesky:

Sorry, that was the wrong link, but I guess it is interesting. Next time I will read my links before posting them to Fark. This is the one I was talking about.  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009/april/dinosaurs-declined-befo r e-mass-extinction31031.html

I guess I'm more interested in what you meant by "It is not certain what happened to them at this point." in your original post.  There is very little doubt that an impact event put an end to the age of the dinosaurs.

Even the study your article is based on does not dispute that it was an impact that finished them off.

This observation supports the suggestion that factors other than the end-Cretaceous bolide impact were responsible for instigating a downward trend in taxonomic richness that preceded the unquestionably abrupt disappearance of many dinosaur taxa at the boundary itself
 
2014-06-09 11:13:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.

I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.


This will be the last time I respond to you.  I should have listened to the others.  Troll.
 
2014-06-09 11:14:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ArcadianRefugee: Is there a collection, somewhere, of the greatest, stupidest quotations by conservatives? Things on par with this?

/by Liberals, too, if that makes you feel good

A Fark Politics thread?


Well, ok, but I had meant "elected officials".
 
2014-06-09 11:16:49 PM  
i1.ytimg.com

Unavailable for comment.
 
2014-06-09 11:18:03 PM  

thebadmitton: [t2.gstatic.com image 256x197]

I thought they were just cancelled


NOT THE MOMMA!
 
2014-06-09 11:19:25 PM  
Noam Chimpsky:

They used to have this there before they realized it debunks the climate hoaxers:

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html


So, how does that demonstrate what you claim it does or debunk anything?  This single point is representative of warming trends throughout the entire world?  That doesn't make a bit of sense.

There is plenty of content on glacier bay that includes discussions of the glacial expansion due to the little ice age and what has happened since.  Don't pretend that this is something that is being hidden.

Now, can you clearly describe how this single geologic area is model for worldwide warming or somehow demonstrate your claim?  What was the rate of temperature change between 100-200 years ago?  You must know, right?  Your claim depends on it.  Where is your data?
 
2014-06-09 11:22:01 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:

Sorry, that was the wrong link, but I guess it is interesting. Next time I will read my links before posting them to Fark. This is the one I was talking about.  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009/april/dinosaurs-declined-befo r e-mass-extinction31031.html

I guess I'm more interested in what you meant by "It is not certain what happened to them at this point." in your original post.  There is very little doubt that an impact event put an end to the age of the dinosaurs.

Even the study your article is based on does not dispute that it was an impact that finished them off.

This observation supports the suggestion that factors other than the end-Cretaceous bolide impact were responsible for instigating a downward trend in taxonomic richness that preceded the unquestionably abrupt disappearance of many dinosaur taxa at the boundary itself


Okay. No one is disputing that the final factor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was an asteroid impact. Sorry for the confusion. My point is that some dinosaurs were already on the decline once the impact happened.

Although there are a couple that *do* think that the impact didn't cause the extinction. Just look up Gerta Keller.  http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxulub.html
 
2014-06-09 11:24:31 PM  

notto: SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.

I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.

This will be the last time I respond to you.  I should have listened to the others.  Troll.


That's a strange response.  I don't know what sets you people off sometimes.  You've never heard of the theory of intrinsic gradualism?
 
2014-06-09 11:28:34 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: It's the one "data point" that actually happened

...


All moving pictures, little reading, no math.

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-09 11:29:44 PM  
Zeppelininthesky:
Although there are a couple that *do* think that the impact didn't cause the extinction. Just look up Gerta Keller.  http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxulub.html

She is only addressing one impact crater that is a suspect. She does not discount that an impact or multiple impacts were part of the extinctions at the end of the age.

A multi-impact scenario is most consistent with the current evidence of impact ejecta and Ir anomalies
 
2014-06-09 11:34:24 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:

They used to have this there before they realized it debunks the climate hoaxers:

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html

So, how does that demonstrate what you claim it does or debunk anything?  This single point is representative of warming trends throughout the entire world?  That doesn't make a bit of sense.

There is plenty of content on glacier bay that includes discussions of the glacial expansion due to the little ice age and what has happened since.  Don't pretend that this is something that is being hidden.

Now, can you clearly describe how this single geologic area is model for worldwide warming or somehow demonstrate your claim?  What was the rate of temperature change between 100-200 years ago?  You must know, right?  Your claim depends on it.  Where is your data?


The data is the reality of what happened. You can't wrap your mind around it because "data", in your mind, doesn't include concrete empirical evidence. If reality is at odds with the dogma, then reality is something that the cultist will discard as being unreliable.

I have challenged the climate cultists with this before and I even had a cultist once who claimed he was a climate scientist dismiss John Muir as a toady of big oil.
 
2014-06-09 11:34:25 PM  

HighOnCraic: [i1.ytimg.com image 300x300]

Unavailable for comment.


Whoa, total flashback.
 
2014-06-09 11:37:41 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:
Although there are a couple that *do* think that the impact didn't cause the extinction. Just look up Gerta Keller.  http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxulub.html

She is only addressing one impact crater that is a suspect. She does not discount that an impact or multiple impacts were part of the extinctions at the end of the age.

A multi-impact scenario is most consistent with the current evidence of impact ejecta and Ir anomalies


I know. I saw one of her lectures, and it was interesting to say the least. Of course, this was quite a few years ago, but she did refine her ideas that there were other forces at play.
 
2014-06-09 11:38:52 PM  

HawgWild: Okay. I'll admit it. I lulz'd.

/it was the checkmate


Yea it got me too. I imagined it being said by a comedic buffoon in one of them funnies they showin on the big screen these days and it gave me a hearty chuckle.

\wearing red white and blue pants with bells and spurs and all that good stuff
\\i think the movie I'm thinking of is "The Election" i dunno its one of those with those funny guys
///do slashies go this way?
 
2014-06-09 11:39:43 PM  
Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.
 
2014-06-09 11:45:04 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.


ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.
 
2014-06-09 11:46:14 PM  
It's amazing and sad how two flaming dipshiats can utterly spoil an otherwise interesting thread.
 
2014-06-09 11:47:02 PM  
Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.


Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?
 
2014-06-09 11:48:26 PM  

BMulligan: It's amazing and sad how two flaming dipshiats can utterly spoil an otherwise interesting thread.


We're talking about dinosaurs in a politics thread and not about the dipshiat in the article - it could be worse.
 
2014-06-09 11:51:01 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html


That's all. I don't need anything more. It is smoking gun proof.
 
2014-06-09 11:56:10 PM  

notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?


Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.
 
2014-06-09 11:57:49 PM  

spongeboob: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

What a great and concise proof that there is no such thing as Climate Change, you have changed my mind.


I'd interpreted his laconic, yet insightful, reply as "methane production by cattle has a significant impact, and would affect such a study." However, he's still quite wrong - and, worse still, even if he were correct, the production of cattle is a direct result of human activities and, as such, would actually reinforce the above statement.

In short, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's a chucklehead.
 
2014-06-09 11:59:24 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html

That's all. I don't need anything more. It is smoking gun proof.


notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?


Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.


Called it.
 
2014-06-10 12:02:36 AM  

Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.


The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.
 
2014-06-10 12:05:56 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.



The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.
 
2014-06-10 12:08:22 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


In addition, what you're arguing only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperatures. That climate has changed before, does not somehow mean it isn't changing now nor does it mean we are somehow not responsible.

This is notable because this is the exact same mistake the congressman in TFA is making.
 
2014-06-10 12:15:40 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


A two hundred year exception? "The exception", according to the climate culty, is the empirical smoking gun evidence whereas "the rule" is evidence gleaned through proxies ( and even those results need to hide the decline during the 1900s ), predictions, unproven-but-peer-reviewed models, etc.
 
2014-06-10 12:15:58 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


In Arizona, it sometimes reaches 100 degrees. By your example, this means it can never be below freezing in Antarctica.
 
2014-06-10 12:17:26 AM  
RINO. Real Republicans believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
 
2014-06-10 12:19:30 AM  
Well, that's enough of the "Deep Thoughts with Skinny & Chimpy Show". I'm out.
 
2014-06-10 12:27:58 AM  

fusillade762:  I'm out.


I'm sure there'll be a parade.
 
2014-06-10 12:41:48 AM  
Seriously, what is the deal with the increased SH posting?

Is this a sign he's about to burn out or something?
 
2014-06-10 12:43:40 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


A two hundred year exception?


An exception more spatially than temporally. Again, you cannot make meaningful inferences about global conditions from a single place.

In addition, you're still running into the problem thatwhat you're arguing only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperatures. This is of course not the case. The analogy that gets bandied about here is that the fact that natural forest fires have existed in the past does not mean that someone cannot burn down a forest intentionally.


Noam Chimpsky: "The exception", according to the climate culty, is the empirical smoking gun evidence whereas "the rule" is evidence gleaned through proxies ( and even those results need to hide the decline during the 1900s ), predictions, unproven-but-peer-reviewed models, etc.


Note that ice melting (as what you yourself are invoking) is itself a proxy for temperature.
 
2014-06-10 12:44:49 AM  

yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.


How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,
 
2014-06-10 12:46:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


Yeah but Wealth Distribution™
 
2014-06-10 12:47:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


"My ignorance is as good as your knowledge."

Because First Amendment, or something.
 
2014-06-10 01:01:25 AM  

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-10 01:06:51 AM  
I wouldn't be surprised if many "skeptics" just feel that politicizing anything and (oh god NO) talking about it is just an annoying thing liberals like to do to feel important.
 
2014-06-10 01:36:26 AM  
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-06-10 01:44:06 AM  

Heliovdrake: Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,

[img.fark.net image 850x637]


Those 25% screech louder than the 75%, and through the help of their friends Gerry and Fox are in near control of 1/3 to 1/2 of the government (as dimwitted as they may be). Pretty much guarantees our failure as a nation unless major reforms are made.
 
2014-06-10 02:03:29 AM  
images.starpulse.com

www.wearysloth.com
 
2014-06-10 02:55:38 AM  
Yes, but DO owls exist? I think there are a few people who think there might not be. And if the owls wear hats, that makes them even less likely to exist, especially if we put them in the box with the cat.
 
2014-06-10 02:57:11 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Yes, but DO owls exist?


boards.cannabis.com
 
2014-06-10 03:00:32 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


I'm going with tobacco companies.
 
2014-06-10 03:05:56 AM  
www.owlpages.com

kitty would be in a world of hurt for a while
 
2014-06-10 03:07:54 AM  
Also, there are ways liberals can manipulate 5 into being a larger number than 15. I don't need to cite any sources.

It's common knowledge.
 
2014-06-10 03:16:21 AM  

whidbey: Also, there are ways liberals can manipulate 5 into being a larger number than 15. I don't need to cite any sources.

It's common knowledge.


Dude.
 
2014-06-10 03:21:11 AM  

Kittypie070: whidbey: Also, there are ways liberals can manipulate 5 into being a larger number than 15. I don't need to cite any sources.

It's common knowledge.

Dude


What? They're already trying to get us to believe 2+2=5.
there are 4 lights

thedoubtexpress.files.wordpress.com

/Yes I'm on my 3rd Sierra Nevada Torpedo
//why do you arsk?
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report