Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 637
  1. #41
    Lieutenant General DigiFluid's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    19,044

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Life tip: when making mac & cheese, use bacon grease as a substitute for butter.
    "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

  2. #42
    Harvey jelgate's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Beach of naked Sebeceans and margarita shooter
    Posts
    35,046

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Why stop there? Every recipe that calls for butter will be replaced with bacon grease. The Divine Bacon demands it
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    Jelgate is right

  3. #43
    Colonel Teddybrown's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Somewhere in the Seven Kingdoms
    Posts
    6,058

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by jelgate View Post
    Do you know if you type just an a on Google search Endgame is the first suggestion
    Have you tried typing Thanos and clicking the glove?

  4. #44
    Lieutenant General DigiFluid's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    19,044

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    I saw that on Friday....Google the corporation may do a lot of evil s**t, but I love that their line programmers are such nerds
    "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

  5. #45
    Harvey jelgate's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Beach of naked Sebeceans and margarita shooter
    Posts
    35,046

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    I did now.

    That is such a Google thing to do
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    Jelgate is right

  6. #46
    First Lieutenant Chaka-Z0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Location
    P3X-888
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by DigiFluid View Post
    Life tip: when making mac & cheese, use bacon grease as a substitute for butter.
    Nice Lifehack
    Spoiler:
    I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.

  7. #47
    First Lieutenant Chaka-Z0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Location
    P3X-888
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by DigiFluid View Post
    I saw that on Friday....Google the corporation may do a lot of evil s**t, but I love that their line programmers are such nerds
    Annoyed alert the militias, the Corps got to him. Gondor calls for aid.
    Spoiler:
    I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.

  8. #48
    Harvey jelgate's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Beach of naked Sebeceans and margarita shooter
    Posts
    35,046

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Who is Gonder?
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    Jelgate is right

  9. #49
    First Lieutenant Chaka-Z0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Location
    P3X-888
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Brother of Gouda
    Spoiler:
    I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.

  10. #50
    Second Lieutenant Who Knows's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    351

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by jelgate View Post
    Who is Gonder?
    Not Who (or even whom) but what.
    Answer is in Tolkins Lord of the Rings, it is a fortress or castle

  11. #51
    Harvey jelgate's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Beach of naked Sebeceans and margarita shooter
    Posts
    35,046

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    I will eat the Gouda with the bacon. Their are very few things I won't eat
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    Jelgate is right

  12. #52
    Captain Xaeden's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
    It really must be nice to be able to redefine words to suit your liking in this discussion, for the simple reason that we cannot PROVE that climate change is mankind's doing.

    Best idea we have yet = Theory, not a proven fact.

    Proven fact = fact
    A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

    "The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."


    https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html


    6.

    a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.

    Atomic theory, big bang theory, quantum theory, etc.: see the first element.
    Theory of evolution, theory of relativity, etc.: see the final element.


    -Oxford English Dictionary

    I could go on like this all day if you want to talk about redefining things. The fact of the matter is that a theory is a substantiated explanation for a compilation of facts when referring to a scientific theory. If you dispute this you are, at worst, redefining the word, and at best simply not capable of understanding that words have different meanings based on different contexts.

    How the hell can they possibly rule out something that has been happening for thousands of years?
    It's not really for me to explain all the intricacies of climate change to you within the confines of a board post. I can and will provide you with a short form explanation to this particular question, but if you want in-depth information you will have to do your own research.

    First, if you're implying that the Earth has been steadily warming for thousands of years, you are incorrect. Earth underwent a warming period thousands of years ago that marked the end of the last Ice Age. It has not been steadily getting warmer since then. There have been some periods of rapid climate change in one direction or another during human history, but they are attributable to specific causes. Climate change does not just happen, there is always a reason and scientists are capable of looking through ice core samples to see how climate has changed in the past. They can then attempt to determine what was going on then to have caused such a change.

    Consequently, we can look at known natural causes for Climate Change and rule out those causes if they remain marginally unchanged. Is the sun putting out more solar energy right now? No. Has Earth's orbit changed? No. And so on.

    Once those known causes are ruled out we then have to contend with facts like: It is a fact that carbon creates a greenhouse effect. It is a fact that carbon in the atmosphere has spiked since the 19th century, especially within the last few decades. It is a fact that the recent spike in warming correlates to this spike in carbon. It is a fact that trees help to absorb carbon. It is a fact that global tree cover is on the decline because of humans. And so on.

    Never mind all the other inconsistencies to the theory, such as first it's cooling, then the data didn't bear that out, so no it's warming... Oh, no, wait a minute, we can't be sure of that either, so we'll just call it "climate change", that way our arse is covered no matter what.
    Are you referring to the "Global Cooling" controversy? That was never a theory, it was conjecture that the media ran with because it made for a good story. They do the same thing with food studies, among other things.

    Science works like this: Someone will do a study and publish a paper or simply publish a paper asserting an idea. Other scientists will then do research that supports or disproves that idea. For example, a lot of people say "they" (meaning scientists) don't know anything because now they think eating/drinking eggs/milk/wine/whatever is good for you when X number of years ago they said it was bad for you or the reverse. In reality, what happens is someone does a study that points to a certain food as a possible cause of the good or bad health effects that they're tracking and they publish a paper explaining their study. They will often say in the paper that more research needs to be done because sample sizes and whatnot may mean they're wrong.

    What happens next is a failing of the media. They like to latch on to these papers and do news reports that start with, "Scientists now say..." and the important fact that this is a preliminary study/idea is either not repeated, buried at the end, or not understood by the people reporting on the paper. This gives the general public the mistaken conclusion that scientists are just touting ever changing things as facts when in reality science is about about putting forth data, making a hypothesis based on limited data, and then trying to obtain more data so that a claim can be repeated and verified.

    People who like to deny Climate Change will point to news reports on Global Cooling on the 1970s without understanding that relying on news reports for what science says is a bad idea. You have to actually be able to look at the work that the news reports are citing and analyze it to determine how far along the science is.

    In the case of "Global Cooling," a very small number of scientific papers were putting forth the idea that that we were moving toward a trend of increased cooling. This is based on actual data that showed a brief cooling period in the 20th century that we know to be caused largely by aerosols. Scientists were aware that CO2 was a problem at that time and the majority were putting out papers sounding the alarm that it would lead to increased warming over time, while a minority thought other factors like aerosols would eclipse the CO2 problem in the long run.

    This was science at work. The data available at the time led to a debate that was quashed as more data came in, which verified that CO2 would lead to a warming trend of global temperatures.

    Sensationalism of the news media inserted itself into this debate and helped to convince uninformed viewers that what was happening then is the same as what's happening now. It's not. We had a debate then, more facts came in, ideas based on limited data were ruled out, and now we have an overwhelming consensus and a codification of facts into a theory, which is, to use a term you might understand, top shelf in the world of science.

    And then of course is most reliable way of figuring out if some one or some people are full of shiznit or not. Follow the money.
    Curious argument considering there's more money in denying Climate Change than there is in promoting it. Also, you're promoting a conspiracy that the majority of the world's scientists in this field are compromising their principles to spew "shiznit" and have somehow managed to convince all these people outside their field with backgrounds that allow them to look at and analyze the same data.

    Even if Climate Change was not a current problem, we still need climate scientists, so the entire field is not going to suddenly be out of work if it was debunked. For all the many people in the field who easily would get grants and other funding to do work outside of Climate Change and for all the people in the field who do not actually get paid to do work based on Climate Change and have looked at the data anyway, why exactly are they maintaining this supposed mass fiction?

    And what's up with studies funded by oil companies coming to the conclusion that Climate Change is real and man made:

    They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/c...nce-study.html

    I followed the money in this case and it came from people who had an interest Climate Change not being their fault. What now?
    Last edited by Xaeden; April 29th, 2019 at 01:24 AM.

  13. #53
    Colonel Gatefan1976's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Smashing skulls!!
    Posts
    5,182

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Xaeden, you are arguing with a wall of ignorance. All of this has been pointed out before (but you did it beutifully).
    Annoyed has feels, no facts. He has attacks, but no responsibility to back it up.
    He's a TEA party republican, it's all everyone else's fault.
    Lincoln would puke listening to his crap.
    ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
    A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
    The truth isn't the truth

  14. #54
    Captain Xaeden's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    I assumed as much. I actually don't mind because I mine forums for writing prompts and opportunities to keep my research skills sharp, so I find these conversations to be personally beneficial even if they don't lead anywhere. I recognize, though, that doing so can be annoying to third parties, especially if a thread gets hijacked in the process, so I'll stop since you guys prefer not to engage.
    Last edited by Xaeden; April 29th, 2019 at 12:01 AM.

  15. #55
    Colonel Gatefan1976's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Smashing skulls!!
    Posts
    5,182

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaeden View Post
    I assumed as much. I actually don't mind because I use forums as opportunities for writing prompts and to keep my research skills sharp, so I find these conversations to be personally beneficial even if they don't lead anywhere. I recognize, though, that doing so can be annoying to third parties, especially if a thread gets hijacked in the process, so I'll stop since you guys prefer not to engage.
    No no, don't stop.
    I use forums the same way.
    Forums are a sounding board and they should be used as such.
    Annoyed is simply holding on to stupid, or irrelevant things.
    ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
    A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
    The truth isn't the truth

  16. #56
    Colonel P-90_177's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Traveling through Time and Space
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Gatefan is right in that it's probably wasted on Annoyed but that was still very brilliantly written Xaeden.
    Please do me a huge favour and help me be with the love of my life.

  17. #57
    Major Annoyed's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The People's Republic of New York
    Posts
    2,413

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by jelgate View Post
    None of which answers Xaeden's argument. Just more denial and conspiracy theories because you can't dispute facts that have been in place for centuries.

    Who wants conspiracy theory bacon?
    Centuries???? Environmental concerns have only existed for the past 70 years or so. Hell, we didn't invent the thermometer till about 500 years ago.

    What has been going on for centuries is climate change. That's been going on since before man existed. Kinda hard to pin it on us.
    "It may seem pointless but small talk is a vital dating skill. It helps to establish a rapport with your companion."
    - Starship Voyager's Holographic Doctor
    "Perhaps there's something to be said for assimilation after all."
    - Former Borg Seven of Nine

  18. #58
    Harvey jelgate's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Beach of naked Sebeceans and margarita shooter
    Posts
    35,046

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
    Centuries???? Environmental concerns have only existed for the past 70 years or so. Hell, we didn't invent the thermometer till about 500 years ago.

    What has been going on for centuries is climate change. That's been going on since before man existed. Kinda hard to pin it on us.
    I'll take P90's facedesk now
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    Jelgate is right

  19. #59
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,812

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaeden View Post
    A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

    "The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."


    https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html


    6.

    a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.

    Atomic theory, big bang theory, quantum theory, etc.: see the first element.
    Theory of evolution, theory of relativity, etc.: see the final element.


    -Oxford English Dictionary

    I could go on like this all day if you want to talk about redefining things. The fact of the matter is that a theory is a substantiated explanation for a compilation of facts when referring to a scientific theory. If you dispute this you are, at worst, redefining the word, and at best simply not capable of understanding that words have different meanings based on different contexts.



    It's not really for me to explain all the intricacies of climate change to you within the confines of a board post. I can and will provide you with a short form explanation to this particular question, but if you want in-depth information you will have to do your own research.

    First, if you're implying that the Earth has been steadily warming for thousands of years, you are incorrect. Earth underwent a warming period thousands of years ago that marked the end of the last Ice Age. It has not been steadily getting warmer since then. There have been some periods of rapid climate change in one direction or another during human history, but they are attributable to specific causes. Climate change does not just happen, there is always a reason and scientists are capable of looking through ice core samples to see how climate has changed in the past. They can then attempt to determine what was going on then to have caused such a change.

    Consequently, we can look at known natural causes for Climate Change and rule out those causes if they remain marginally unchanged. Is the sun putting out more solar energy right now? No. Has Earth's orbit changed? No. And so on.

    Once those known causes are ruled out we then have to contend with facts like: It is a fact that carbon creates a greenhouse effect. It is a fact that carbon in the atmosphere has spiked since the 19th century, especially within the last few decades. It is a fact that the recent spike in warming correlates to this spike in carbon. It is a fact that trees help to absorb carbon. It is a fact that global tree cover is on the decline because of humans. And so on.



    Are you referring to the "Global Cooling" controversy? That was never a theory, it was conjecture that the media ran with because it made for a good story. They do the same thing with food studies, among other things.

    Science works like this: Someone will do a study and publish a paper or simply publish a paper asserting an idea. Other scientists will then do research that supports or disproves that idea. For example, a lot of people say "they" (meaning scientists) don't know anything because now they think eating/drinking eggs/milk/wine/whatever is good for you when X number of years ago they said it was bad for you or the reverse. In reality, what happens is someone does a study that points to a certain food as a possible cause of the good or bad health effects that they're tracking and they publish a paper explaining their study. They will often say in the paper that more research needs to be done because sample sizes and whatnot may mean they're wrong.

    What happens next is a failing of the media. They like to latch on to these papers and do news reports that start with, "Scientists now say..." and the important fact that this is a preliminary study/idea is either not repeated, buried at the end, or not understood by the people reporting on the paper. This gives the general public the mistaken conclusion that scientists are just touting ever changing things as facts when in reality science is about about putting forth data, making a hypothesis based on limited data, and then trying to obtain more data so that a claim can be repeated and verified.

    People who like to deny Climate Change will point to news reports on Global Cooling on the 1970s without understanding that relying on news reports for what science says is a bad idea. You have to actually be able to look at the work that the news reports are citing and analyze it to determine how far along the science is.

    In the case of "Global Cooling," a very small number of scientific papers were putting forth the idea that that we were moving toward a trend of increased cooling. This is based on actual data that showed a brief cooling period in the 20th century that we know to be caused largely by aerosols. Scientists were aware that CO2 was a problem at that time and the majority were putting out papers sounding the alarm that it would lead to increased warming over time, while a minority thought other factors like aerosols would eclipse the CO2 problem in the long run.

    This was science at work. The data available at the time led to a debate that was quashed as more data came in, which verified that CO2 would lead to a warming trend of global temperatures.

    Sensationalism of the news media inserted itself into this debate and helped to convince uninformed viewers that what was happening then is the same as what's happening now. It's not. We had a debate then, more facts came in, ideas based on limited data were ruled out, and now we have an overwhelming consensus and a codification of facts into a theory, which is, to use a term you might understand, top shelf in the world of science.



    Curious argument considering there's more money in denying Climate Change than there is in promoting it. Also, you're promoting a conspiracy that the majority of the world's scientists in this field are compromising their principles to spew "shiznit" and have somehow managed to convince all these people outside their field with backgrounds that allow them to look at and analyze the same data.

    Even if Climate Change was not a current problem, we still need climate scientists, so the entire field is not going to suddenly be out of work if it was debunked. For all the many people in the field who easily would get grants and other funding to do work outside of Climate Change and for all the people in the field who do not actually get paid to do work based on Climate Change and have looked at the data anyway, why exactly are they maintaining this supposed mass fiction?

    And what's up with studies funded by oil companies coming to the conclusion that Climate Change is real and man made:

    They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/c...nce-study.html

    I followed the money in this case and it came from people who had an interest Climate Change not being their fault. What now?
    You'll get no argument from me that we could be better stewards of our environment. Although an argument could be made that changes to the climate are far more likely from Plinian and ultra-Plinian volcanic eruptions (such as the kind produced by Mt. Tambora which resulted in the "Year without a Summer" in the early 1800's) than from mankind's industrial output. My beef is the fact that most of the ways bandied about so far amount to yet another tax on the citizenry, a citizenry that pays quite enough in taxes already. We need ways that don't involve increasing the already large amount of government control over our lives to authoritarian levels and which will create meaningful and lasting jobs.

  20. #60
    First Lieutenant Chaka-Z0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Location
    P3X-888
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: Flat Earthers and other regressions

    "A" claims CC can't be pinned on us
    "B" gives substantial proof and pins it on us
    "A": see it can't be pinned on us because of absofukentely no reason

    Where's the line for p90's desk? Oh I see GF's dead body, I must be close.
    Spoiler:
    I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.

Similar Threads

  1. The earth is flat and i can prove it!
    By epg20 in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 7th, 2018, 01:36 AM
  2. Very funny -flat Earthers!
    By walterIsTheMan in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: June 20th, 2007, 10:52 AM
  3. New flat + no net connection = not so much Gateworld
    By Matt G in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 11th, 2006, 03:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •