StrangeSox

that's what can happen when you walk the #8 hitter with two outs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) Carl? His name is listed as "Carl Getz" on the All Star Ballot

have to get some runs here. No way should Dempster get out of this inning with only the solo HR.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 04:43 PM) Oh that's BS...he's thinking about the ladies. State-own means of production is never far from his mind, of course

I take back anything bad I said about Pods back in 2007. He's been the biggest surprise, by far, this year.

TIE GAME! PODS HOMERUN!

don't try to understand it. The strike zone is random today.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) I'll cut him some slack when he doesn't help the Cubs score runs. Although, his error could have been blamed on Beckham cutting him off too, according ot the radio guys. beckham did screen him on that play

delayed bulls*** call.

Huh. I didn't know that about RI.

Alaska is good, but that's because they get tons of money from leasing their oil land. There's a couple of others that have balanced budgets right now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Again, ignore the two because you think they're garbage. Because people who do research on global warming aren't getting funded, either, right? There is a lot of money in global warming, and so a lot of science will be there, for most of them, prooving it wrong cuts off their source of money, another catch 22. How many times have these papers been cited in subsequent publications? That's a good indication of whether or not they're worth a damn. Then provide them. Lets try to discuss the science as best we can (because none of us here are experts in this field, as far as I know). Let's drop the pejoratives and polemics and demagoguery and discuss what actual objections you have to the mainstream interpretation.

Doesn't matter. All science is equal. Still up for debate

Some > zero. Let me add that, while I don't know the specifics of this bill, I don't like the way its being shoved through the Congress. Its being voted on fresh off the printers with hundreds of pages of amendments. It has the potential to be a complete disaster. This is no weight on the actual science, however.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming Ignore it more. Sorry I don't agree with you on the global warming myth, you've done nothing to convince me...nor anyone else here that opposes you. This comes down to yet another case that those that agree with you need no explanation, and for those that do not agree (me) no explanation will do. Why don't we just leave it at that? Because you don't know what you're talking about and have demonstrated that you don't understand the basic underlying science before declaring it a "myth".

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming Plenty of references cited -- I know, though, you'll just ignore them all. My forehead is going to start hurting. NSS already pointed out why that list isn't what you think it is. Have you ever actually read a single scientific piece of literature on this topic, or are you basing your conclusions entirely on politics and polemics?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) So then you admit it's all theory. Thanks. massive :facepalm: All of science is theory. You have just effectively admitted that you don't understand scientific research. I'll paste this from another discussion I had elsewhere: Fundamental misunderstanding of science. Theory in the scientific sense is not the same as in the common usage. It doesn't mean "guess" or idea; that's a hypothesis. Theories are the most powerful parts of science. There isn't a hypothesis->theory->law hierarchy. Theories never become laws. In fact, theories explain more than laws do. Laws are simply statements of observations without explanations; f=ma, or pv=nrt. Useful, sure, but it doesn't actually explain why or how those things happen. Theories, on the other hand, do have explanatory power -- they make distinct, falsifiable predictions and explanations of natural phenomenon. If these predictions hold true, the theory is strengthened. If they fail, the theory is discarded or modified. Relativity is "just a theory," even though the math works out quite well and its effects have been measured and observed. Hell, your GPS system wouldn't work without compensating for it. Atomic theory is "just a theory," but we still have atomic bombs and nuclear power plants just the same. It won't ever be "elevated" to atomic law because there isn't a hierarchy like that. Same for the germ theory of disease, gravitation, quantum mechanics, information, etc.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) I can say the same. There are papers on both sides right now. It's still not prooven fact. I can keep repeating this if you didn't yet understand it. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climat...amp;btnG=Search Can you tell me which ones? Have you read any of them? You're comparing thousands of papers to dozens. Also, nothing in science is "proven fact." You'll never find a statement like "this proves" in a scientific paper. It's "the data shows" or "our findings suggest". Proof is left to the mathematicians.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) But it does in fact exist -- and shows that there IS opposing science. Everyone here is claiming opposing science doesn't -- but it does. Documentaries are not science. Papers that don't stand up to review are not good science. Wikipedia has a laundry list of the bulls*** in that film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Glo...n_and_criticism

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) Oh, and I have a great answer to this. Global warming isn't actually as accurate of a word to describe what is happening as climate change (Hell, Anthropogenic (human-caused) Climate change is even more accurate). Why? Because not all of the globe gets warmer with increasing CO2 emissions. 80% of the world gets warmer, the poles warm up extremely, but there are zones that certainly get colder. Europe is a prime example - if you warm the north atlantic you weaken the gulf stream, less energy is brought north, and Northern Europe on the whole cools off somewhat. Also, the melting glaciers will cool down the north atlantic, stopping the giant ocean "conveyor belt" that brings warmer waters up to Europe/ England.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) The answer is because it was bulls***. The world goes through warming and cooling periods, over and over again, it did it before man was here, and it will do it after man is here, too. I have a feeling that those who spend their entire lives studying the issue are aware of natural trends. It's this sort of completely empty criticism that swayed me.

TGGWS actually did fabricate data. Two of the contributing scientists had serious problems with the final product. It's a propaganda film. I lend it no more weight than Inconvenient Truth. Peer-reviewed science, please.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:50 AM) I love the Discovery Institute's "We don't believe in evolution and we're scientists!" list. We have a list of people who support evolution longer than their list by a factor of 10. The difference? Ours consists solely of people named "Steve". It's pretty much the same way in climate science. We have more people named Steve who think it's a problem than they have people. Project Steve

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Really, no science saying it's not happening... here's a list of some of the global warming skeptics who so happen to be scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming Oh, how about this one: You can find silly "Dissent from Darwin" lists, too. They're meaningless. Where's the peer-reviewed papers? http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462 A report of a WorldNetDaily (ha!) report of a petition? What is this supposed to mean? Who are the signatories? What is their relavant expertise? Why should I care what a medical doctor or someone with a bachelor's degree has to say? Are these 9,000 PhD holders climatologists, meteorologists, or have any sort of expertise in this field? I hold a Bachelor's in science. I never took a single course on biology, climate, geology, weather, etc. in college. Why should my opinion on the matter lend any weight to the issue? These sorts of lists are just crappy appeals to authority, and its not even relevant authority. Where is the science? Source, please. Citations, please. Google Scholar is a fantastic source. So is arXiv.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) Thank you. Could 99% of these climatologists be wrong? Sure. But to hang onto that 1% as if its likely is like waiting for DeWayne Wise to go on a 30 game hitting streak. The counter-science just isn't there. Its non-existent or a very, very small minority. the only tide that is changing is purely politicians and op-ed writers. Absolutely. Count me in the "I'm not 100% sure, but better safe than sorry" category.