StrangeSox

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.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) If it's not about money, why did congress just pass a bill that does nothing but tax the s*** out of everyone? Congress =/= scientific research. The bill is designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Taxes and tax rebates are economic incentives to do things. The idea that the vast majority of scientists would lie and fake data for decades for money is incredibly offensive to one of our most important bodies of work.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) In the 1970's, the science of global cooling was "90%" prooven fact, too. Funny how that changed the second the money started flowing toward warming. It's bulls***, it's about money, it's always about money. Another false meme. Literature reviews of papers published show a 44-7 margin in favor of warming in the 70's. What Time or Newsweek chooses to hype doesn't determine what the mainstream scientific thought is. They will often pick the more sensational story. Also, the cooling periods cited were often 10 or 20k years out, not exactly short term. It's not about the money. If you think it is, then you probably don't know any actual scientists. With that line of thought, you can just dismiss any and all scientific findings because they're just lying for money. It makes me sad to see people denigrate scientific study in such an ignorant manner.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) Your the arrogant one if you completely ignore the science against it. Global Climate Change or whatever the hell it is called now is FAR from a fact. In Europe you are seeing more and more scientists stepping up against Global Warming. But yeah, you're right... we're just all deniers if we don't accept the crap Al Gore has been feeding us over the past several years. I should get my head checked because I don't agree with "90% of science." :facepalm: It's not about Gore. Forget about Gore. He does not matter. Personally, I think he's a jackass. Doesn't matter one bit. Pay attention to peer-reviewed science, not political figures or editorials. That's what matters. As for the 90%, here's a link. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The tide isn't turning. There's no global conspiracy to suppress evidence or data showing otherwise. It's not an insidious liberal agenda and its not about greedy scientists. Put away the tin foil hats and pick up a copy of Science, or at least Scientific American. It wasn't that I've read a lot of the science or that "hmm, they mostly agree" that convinced me; it was the completely vacuousness of the counter-arguments. There will always be doubters and contrarians. There's still fringe scientists out there who deny evolution or relativity. You'll find that they have the same global conspriracy, suppressing the truth, in-it-for-the-money, but the tide is turning! rhetoric.

Eh, no, its because there's been a "debate" in scientific journals for decades. That's where science gets hashed out, not on the floor of the Senate. And the overwhelming majority of the conclusions of the papers published in the journals is "Climate Change is real, and we play a part in it." The legit and very serious argument has been had between scientists. Most (something like slightly over 90% of actively publishing scientists on all topics) are convinced that there's at least some human aspect to global warming. Watch, someone will try to assert that there's somehow an equal amount of evidence on both "sides" even though this doesn't come close to reflecting reality. Oh, wait...

Does too! Surprise, Republicans are promising to filibuster the bill in the Senate. Inhofe Says 'Cap And Trade' Dead House Filibuster They really want to earn that obstructionist label.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) If you can get them to take their best reliever out of the game, you do it. If you can get them to keep the guy who just gave up two runs and loaded the bases in, you do it.

From Nate Silver via 538.com

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) Looks like some bad "journalism": Shoddy journalism from WND? I'm shocked. QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) I won't venture down the path of what has or hasn't cheapened religion and faith over the centuries, but I get what your saying about the seeming contradiction of faith and the requirement of some physical proof or artifact. The thing is, if a discovery like this were ever shown to be genuine (not saying this current one has much chance of that) it would be an amazingly important archeological find, all spiritual matters aside. Even if I believe the Christian faith hold no more water than any other belief system humans have conjured up over the last 6,000 years, I think it would be really cool to find genuine artifacts dating back to the earliest days in the formation of those belief systems. Unearthing an early Buddhist prayer wheel from the 4th century, or a 6,000 year old Sumerian tablet statue of Ninkasi is a cool thing on a secular level. Finding something specifically referenced in historic scripture like the Ark or Moses' stone tablets would be a couple orders of magnitude beyond that, and easily appreciated by the secular world (if it could be shown to be authentic), even if the spiritual folks don't need it and are content with faith. It would certainly be an interesting archaeological find.

The current article making the blog/ forums rounds: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html It's funny how much this mirrors pro-ID/ creation articles.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 09:02 AM) I'm looking around at articles on the health care bill right now, and not seeing this. I would highly doubt they would do this. What is your source? And if you are right that it is being proposed, you are also right in that it would never pass. It's an idea that's been brought up in discussion supposedly. It's already written in stone according to conservative blogs. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...3-48810402.html

That's what it will cost the government. What does it cost private industry?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 06:44 AM) I'll probably agree with you, but at what point are you determining someone is "rich". I always thought it was the "middle class" that paid the most actual dollars, not percentage. Based on sheer numbers of middle class Americans. The top 20% pays something like 75% of the total taxes. They also control about 50% of the income. http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

He also took a government-paid trip to Argentina for a "business conference" or something. He did agree to reimburse the state of Georgia for that one.

For some reason, the new server gets around my work's filter (soxtalk was blocked for being in the "sports" category).

That was pretty crazy. Of course he won't be resigning any time soon, even though he demanded that Clinton did. For some reason, my work's firewall stopped blocking Soxtalk with the new server switch

I wouldn't consider McCain a neoconservative at all.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) How's that? Well, see, they know that if they really start a revolution, the American military will come rolling in to help out! Which makes perfect sense because 1) We'd actually do that 2) They'd actually want foreign military intervention It was really just someone trying to ad hoc justify the Iraq war still.

Alaska doesn't have any prisoner access laws, that's what the issue is here. They can simply say "Sorry, we're not letting you have access to the evidence in order to retest. Enjoy your life sentence." And now the SCOTUS has said the same.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) Some of the op-eds I've read criticizing Obama are unbelievably dumb, they just aren't based anywhere in reality. And why do people assume America's support is automatically wanted, and approved of? Sometimes, in fact most of the time, when thinking about other countries you have to take your "nationality" glasses off and try and see the world differently than a random American from Nebraska would. Otherwise nothing you say or think will make any sense. I've actually read someone make the argument that the protesters are emboldened by the fact that the US military is in Iraq.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Ack-muh-DEE-neh-jahd Every time I hear his name I think of that scene from Office Space

Aside from the actual constitutional issue, it appears that Roberts' opinion is just pretty illogical anyway. So, even if he made the right decision, it was for the wrong reasons.