Y2HH

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) What I'm about to say sounds like a sales pitch, and I guess it kind of is, but it's also all from my own experience. 1) Shakeology is the absolute healthiest shake on the market. It's made up of 70+ superfoods that you just can't get in other mass-market health shakes 2) It costs $4/shake, which is comparable to a shake at the gym and the same price as a Naked Juice, which is pure sugar and hardly anything else 3) Benefits include: more energy, clearer skin, improved digestion and detox benefits, improved immune system function. I've been using the stuff for 6 months, and haven't gotten sick once - haven't even felt under the weather. I'm sure it's a combination of things including improving my diet, but Shakeology's played a big part in that. 4) Full day's worth of fruit+veggies in one shake 5) 23 vitamins and minerals including Vitamin K 6) Tastes good. Naked juice is fruit...they add no sugar...so the sugar you get from it is whatever is in the fruit. If these Shakeology shakes have "fruit" in them, but no sugar...they're not real...they're doing something to remove the natural sugars. There is nothing wrong with the sugars in fruit...nothing.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:18 PM) Mitt Romney's world tour summed up: bullet, meet foot. His world tour won't affect him at all.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 01:04 AM) "Well, your honor, according to you sexual orientation is something we can control. So, if the opposition could please demonstrating by becoming gay and then straight, we'll drop our argument." Too bad Judges don't have to prove their case in court...the person(s) standing in front of them do.

See, this is where the biggest issue is...with our worldwide division. Never mind the fact that we're all human, and we're all to blame...some of us are white...and some of us are chinese...and some of us are black...you get the idea. We can't do this because if one nation caps themselves, or taxes their own companies to hell and back, and another doesn't follow suit, undoing any good we attempt to do, they would also crush us economically when everything they produce is uncapped, and untaxed...thus cheap and impossible to compete with on an macro-economic level. These suggestions aren't real world solutions. They're utopian solutions, at best. Until we are a united Earth, one currency, one culture...those solutions cannot work, because when implemented, they will overburden your GDP and give others that do not follow these same rules a huge advantage. So...what are some actual non-utopian solutions to this? Or is the answer so simple, but so scary, you don't want to say it? There is no solution. Because the human race won't allow there to be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) Carbon caps, for starters. Heavy investment in alternative energy. Probably need strong carbon taxes as well. Wouldn't these types of solutions hinder the economy at a time when that's the last thing we can do?

Now, to get this conversation back on track...if there is definitive proof that man made CO2 is the cause, and there is NO doubt left because of the numerous studies you keep citing say so, which were obviously peer reviewed and published...then what are the solutions? Are there any actual viable solutions? Or will we just continue to go around and around here and accomplish nothing? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I've now bought into your arguments...we did it. Now what?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:45 PM) Funders, not contributors. Important distinction. I get the distinction, I just think this entire thing is a flawed argument, and we should go back to before it was injected into the conversation, derailing everything because it's based off a fake skeptic's findings. Like I said, the findings may be 100% accurate, but it makes me feel like you're trying to deceive me...which forces doubt into the process. In short, don't cite fake skeptics, because some other skeptical 'blog' on the Internets claimed they were a skeptic...even though they weren't. All of that equates to one thing...FUD, and that injects doubt into the mix.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:39 PM) Why should we care what the director of communications (PR) of the Koch Industries says about scientific studies? I thought we were interested in the science? As part of the BEST study, they performed climate modeling. This modeling matches very well with other models (and actual data) and relies on CO2 being the dominant driver. The goal of their study was to validate or refute surface temperature data, but to do so they had to look at the cause of warming. Because YOU said their study showed they looked at the cause of warming, but the director of comms refutes what you say. And I'm to believe you over them? Why? Ah, I see, I should ignore an official statement from one of the main contributors to the study you cite, but I should just take your word for it. ...and you wonder why you lose people when you talk about this? Seriously?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:25 PM) Then you should be interested in the BEST study and its confirmation of a whole bunch of other studies that show human-emitted CO2 as essentially the only driver of current warming. The Koch Foundation claims the BEST study had nothing to do with cause of warming. This is the problem. You claim the BEST story confirms a bunch of other studies that show human emitted CO2 is the cause...and the director of communications from Koch claims the study did nothing of the sort. This was the foundations official statement on the matter, refuting your own: http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.org/...rature-project/ This is why these conversations can be so infuriating to me...and why I have a hard time listening to people on the subject.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:49 PM) For crying out loud, Koch industries in part funded the study. I have no idea who Koch industries is. So how am I supposed to care about this? There is also this: "The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed" - Tonya Mullins, Director of Communications, Charles Koch Foundation

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:21 PM) He started the BEST study specifically because of his skepticism regarding the temperature data. He was accepted as a skeptic by skeptics until the results came out. Does that say anything to you about the skeptics' integrity? I don't read random skeptic blogs, so I don't really care what the skeptics have to say. I only care what the science is saying.

Let's backtrack and begin before we referenced this guy colored as a skeptic (and I don't care by whom), who I've concluded was never a skeptic to begin with...by his own writings he even says he was never a skeptic. This makes me feel like you're trying to deceive me...even though I know that's not the case. That's not the mindset I'd like to be in when having this conversation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:50 PM) And now he perfectly reproduced the graph. You guys would be doing yourselves and the community a service by not referencing alarmists on either side of the equation, those making up skeptics or otherwise. This simply tarnishes the conversation and introduces reason for doubt...you could just do what you were doing and let the science speak for itself...you had my attention while doing that. You started to lose it when you referenced posts about "converted skeptics" that weren't skeptics to begin with, but may have a had a thought or two in their past that was used as a warning to politicians as to why you shouldn't bandwagon hop pop-science until the scientists themselves understand it better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:47 PM) Someone just go to his Wikipedia page and excerpt the part on the "hockey stick controversy" for me. You mean the very controversy he himself dismissed? You don't have to bother. http://books.google.com/books?id=6DBnS2g-K...%22&f=false The best part is, he's basically is saying the same thing I said to you guys on here in his warning to politicians and future presidents.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:46 PM) Then why did Powerline and WUWT regard him as such and eagerly anticipate the BEST study validating their claims? Because they're morons? How could they, or anyone with a brain consider someone a skeptic that was ringing the alarm bell about this for almost a decade before this BEST study you continue to reference? That's just stupid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:45 PM) He was touted as a skeptic by skeptics prior to the release of the BEST results, then he became another apostate. It's not "the media" that pushed that angle, it was blogs like Powerline and WUWT that promoted him and the BEST study until it came out with conclusions they didn't like. He was touted as a skeptic by nobody that I can see.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:41 PM) Denialists called him a skeptic. That's what my link demonstrates: in 2008, he was being hailed as a great iconoclast against the religion of global warming. As recently as last year, Anthony Watts was very confident that the BEST group would affirm his beliefs. It was only after their initial results came out that they started distancing themselves from him in a No True Skeptic manner. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what some bloggers on the internet think he is or isn't. As you've said, the science should speak for itself, and it keeps saying the same thing: the globe is warming, the only known causal factor at this scale is CO2, and human emissions are what have thrown it so off-balance. ...and again, he was never a skeptic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:36 PM) Rightbloggers are trying to distance themselves from his as much as possible since it turns out that, after looking at the facts and letting them speak for themselves, he has concluded that AGW is real. This is unsurprising because their denialism is based on ideology. Reading through the references, I'd have to agree with that site he was never a skeptic...he was talking about CO2 causing this long before your post about him claiming to be a skeptic...sounds made up. I'm not saying his science is wrong...but somewhere along the lines, people called him a skeptic, but I see nothing skeptical about what he's been saying over time. According to this new study, which he concluded last year...he's no longer a skeptic. But published on MIT's website, by Muller himself...he says, "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium." That doesn't sound skeptical to me...at all. And since that was written by him in 2003...he's been a skeptic longer than the single year since his study. It's stuff like this why you have a hard time getting people to listen to your arguments, guys...you are going along with the media, or him in this case, in making up converted skeptics in an attempt to make a point. Why do this? Why make up converted skeptics? I just don't get it...this added nothing to the conversation and did less than nothing in getting me to listen. This is the garbage I hate about this entire conversation. If you wouldn't go along with crap like this, and keep the argument on point, rather than doing this...maybe you'd get peoples attention and keep it. Instead, what you'll do now, is try to make the story of him ever being skeptical real...when it's clearly not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:32 PM) He was a skeptic until he disagreed with them. Nor does this cast any doubt on a scientific study or warrant the use of scare quotes around study. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/t...ard-muller.html Or he was never a skeptic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 09:12 PM) The guy at Berkeley who was going to prove that climate change was a fraud had an op-ed in the NYT yesterday. It's actually kind of nice to see someone come out and say that the IPCC results are very conservative and probably underestimating what we've actually done. From what I've read on Google about this "skeptic" in the last few minutes, this guy was never a global warming skeptic. Casts some serious doubt on this "study".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) Yeah, I'm coming back to hit one more thing. Forgiveness please. This entire day's discussion on this issue was motivated by a group from Berkeley who went in and tested what they thought was faulty statistics, in an effort to show that CO2 was not the only driver, which was their bias going in. They wound up coming to a stronger conclusion than the IPCC and saying that human-released CO2 was, within error, the only driver of the temperature change in the last 250 years. Just wanted to highlight that discrepancy. So this is definitive that man made CO2 is the only driver, or are you basing this on this one study/conclusion? Are there other studies that say it's not the only driver, but we're ignoring them for this specific response? I'd actually like to know this... Up until now, I thought it was only being considered as a driver, not "the only driver that exists", which is what you and apparantly these folks from Berkley are now claiming. This is hard to believe considering your 250 year statistic...what were humans doing prior to the industrial revolution that was causing mass quantities of CO2?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) Which is the best proof of the nonexistence of god. If god exists, he must be all powerful and all knowing (otherwise he is not god.) If he is all knowing, then he must know everything I will do. If he knows what I am going to do, then I never really had the freedom to choose in the first place. Thus, no matter what I have done, god wanted me to do it. This also depends on what you consider "God" to be. For example, I consider the "big bang", or the "prime mover" to be God. It doesn't necessarily have to be some being that walks or talks like a human...nor does it even have to actually care about us...whatsoever. IMO, it's indifferent...for what it's worth. It started it all...it made all life possible. But it doesn't really care what happens now. By all accounts, even if it can care...I doubt it would. It's on an order of magnitude equal to how we feel about stepping on and killing a thousands upon thousands of ants...or killing a bee hive, etc...

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) I don't think you read what I wrote correctly. Android 4.0, whenever I used it on a phone that wasn't two years old, never had a slow UI. This was on the Nexus S (nearly 2 years old) and Galaxy Nexus. I read it correctly. The issue is that you were in denial. Because it was slow. It was slow enough, as a matter of fact, that Google actually did something about it in 4.1. If it wasn't slow, and the entire world -- other than you -- was imagining this, then Google wouldn't have needed to create and highlight "project butter" in 4.1. This is nothing more than "Fandroid" denial. This is a common thing I see with people who seem to love their devices...and that sure as hell goes for Apple fanboi's who are in denial that the Apple iOS UI is "great", when it has obvious deficiencies. The only reason you never noticed it, is because you went out of your way to use it in a way in which it wouldn't stutter...as you highlight below when you say people need to "learn to use their phones". It would have been slow if you used it in an obvious way that made it slow...you simply "learned" ways to prevent it by artificially changing your usage habits. This shouldn't be necessary. Bloatware is part of the problem, but it's not nearly the entire problem. You shouldn't have to know how to "use your phone properly" for it to not stutter on overpowered hardware, this is just a nonsense statement, and an excuse at best. The phone should work just fine considering the hardware beneath it is about 2x faster than necessary for anything it will do. The actual reason is because Android wasn't optimized from the ground up...and when it was compiled, it was done so poorly. Android is based on Java, but it runs non-native java code through it's kernel. Cyanogen is more than a simple recompile of Android base without bloatware. It's optimized. Highly optimized. That's why it was upwards of twice as fast as the updated code on a Galaxy Nexus, which contains no bloat. Look up information on something called "Linaro". Here is some information: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/06/09/li...g-added-to-cm9/ Somewhat highlights what I'm talking about. In a real world test/example, their compile of ICS is 2 times faster than the base code Google releases. On the same hardware.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) I never noticed any true lag on higher-end Android phones that aren't bogged down by horrible UIs (like Sense or Touchwiz). 4.1 is smoother than previous iterations, but I honestly don't care for it (the smoothness) nor do I notice it enough to care for it. Just like how I didn't care for the smooth UI on the iPhone 4 when I used it for a week a month back. The Galaxy Nexus also isn't a huge device. It's big next to an iPhone (what isn't?), but the device itself feels moderate for something with a 4.65 inch screen. My fully extended thumb can also reach from one end of the device to another and then a whole finger nail's length when I hold it. Maybe I have a long thumb, but I honestly can't see how typing on this with one hand would be hard. There have been times where my thumb wouldn't be able to reach something all the way on the top right corner, but it's not often that I have to do something like that. So you are saying you like a slow, stuttering, unoptimized UI experience over a smooth one? That makes almost no sense to me. I can pick up any Android phone and notice it...where as you cannot notice it on iOS or WM7/8. Android wasn't optimized, and it was compiled improperly which didn't help, something Google is now going out of their way to fix because even they know it wasn't a very smooth experience.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) Certainly provides a deterrent Against a reasonable foe it might.