Oblarg

Regardless, "remarks that were deemed "offensive" to the president" is a pretty pathetic reason to arrest someone.

That's a bit harsh, I think. The truth is harsh. People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge.

Thoughts? I admit, I lol'd. I would have preferred a picture of a red herring, though. The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

Hold on. Who is qualified to judge? Physicists? Anyone with a science degree? Someone involved with the IPCC? Those whose opinion supports your own? Just who, exactly? And weren't you saying just last page that "the ability to read and basic understanding of science" was enough? Which one is it? Yeah, the problem is that, in science, it's also necessary to deal with the data that doesn't agree with one's hypothesis. And I was told that it's also important to try and maintain perspective of the limited application value of one's model, considering how other factors aren't well understood and therefore left out or parametrized: Bohr wouldn't have tried to use his model to predict the emission spectrum of carbon. Also: Taking previous posts out of context doesn't help your point. Anyone with the ability to read and basic understanding of science should be able to form an educated opinion based on the testimony of scientists who study the actual data. I never said any person could go look at the data and draw conclusions, because that's idiotic; there's too much of it, and the only people really capable of getting any viable conclusions from the available data are those who do it for a job. However, random people on message boards are not going to topple the views of the majority of the scientific community. Usually, when you don't draw the same conclusions from the data you've seen as scientists who have seen much more data than you do, it's not because the scientists are wrong, it's because you haven't seen enough data. I'm not naive enough to think I'm qualified to prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming based on the limited information available to me, thus the only reasonable stance is to trust the conclusions of those who do have access to the data. This does not mean I should not look at the information that I can, and certainly people who don't know anything about science will have less-informed opinions than those who do (see: nonsense such as "I always said it wasn't a big deal, for the simple fact that the atmosphere is so damn large that our emissions can't logically have that great an effect... "), but it does mean that the opinions of those who analyze this stuff as a career are very likely more reliable than mine. This goes for pretty much anyone. I suppose I don't share your view that our current models are not sufficient, though I'd like to see some of the sources that have led you to that conclusion.

What, you mean not just feeding them information to regurgitate onto horribly designed tests later? Why would you ever do that?

Unfortunately, Texas, history doesn't care about your political views. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

It wasn't. Not as far as providing an explanation for the emission spectrum of hydrogen goes, at any rate. In a general sense, yes, it's wrong -- though I've mostly heard it described as "incomplete" and "limited". It wasn't meant to explain ALL reality at the subatomic level, FOREVAR. Unlike your mind, science isn't a 0 or 1 thing. Well, it must be nice to have faith in something at least. Good luck with that. Btw, that's an informal fallacy. (argument from authority) It's not a fallacy if the only people who are really qualified to judge are the authority to whom you are referring. It's not blind faith, either. I've read my fair share of articles either way, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic global warming. The only issue I have is the rush to "do something about it" instead of an accurate assessment of the potential damage.

No ****, Sherlock! What was the model originally posited for, genius? Did it serve its purpose? At any rate, re-read what Walsingham said, think how Bohr's model illustrates his point, and rethink your ridiculous statement that "a model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is worthless". I'll be waiting. I already explained how AGW isn't even up to "theory" standards, as far as the scientific meaning of the word goes. A hypothesis with a basis on highly contested data and woefully incomplete and fine-tuned mathematical models? Sure. A "theory"? Perhaps, but only in the "I have a theory: you are a moron" sense. So tell us, what is AGW, according to you? A scientific Law? An epistemological imperative? A palindrome? PROTIP: It's also useful to explain HOW the argument you are trying to refute is wrong. The catch is that bluffing is much more difficult. What exactly are you trying to prove? The model was wrong. If your entire point is that models can be wrong, then this is a very stupid argument indeed. It doesn't change the fact that you have to assume a model is correct for it to have any value, and you revise it when its predictions no longer match observations. I don't see where we are disagreeing, nor do I see how it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Of course, you can always just disregard the data as "woefully incomplete," but somehow I trust the majority of the scientific community over some nobody on an internet message board.

Nah, I restate my points in as derogatory a tone as I'm capable of when folks refuse to address the points and instead have a go at me. It's simple, really. It doesn't say much about you that you haven't been able to recognize this pattern yet. Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, nor are their opinions meaningless. That may actually be the case, but it's up to you to write a convincing rebuttal. Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong. Obbie, meet Bohr's atomic model. Bohr, meet Obbie. Etc... Bohr's atomic model is incorrect for anything other than the ground state of hydrogen, bud. I never said *your* opinion was invalid (though, seeing how the post was worded it's pretty telling if you thought I did). So far the ball is in your court. I called you out on your completely absurd "just a theory" argument, and you never properly responded.

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong. I realise we're being rather heated, but I am afraid I have to disagree further, rather than agree. Models in themselves merely describe a simulated behaviour, almost invariably hedged in with assumptions imperative due to restricted data and understanding. Yes, they are very valuable because as a 'working' model they often an be tested for internal coherence, but applying models as a form of reality prediction is fraught with danger. Models don't just become wrong as you suggest. They become restricted in application. A model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is a worthless model.

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong.

Talk about clumsy trolling. I edited the post, even if you don't really deserve it. So far your contributions to this thread have amounted to calling everyone an ignorant, claiming that any opinions different from your own are irrelevant, and accusing me of being wrong without actually substantiating such claims. This may come as a shock, but your word is not law around these parts, Obbie. We are not your mommy. And yeah, hurt as your pride may be, you are a total n00b at trolling. Not subtle, not funny, not even snobbish enough. Simply... weak. edit: I wouldn't bother, Wals. He's clearly not interested in the link, or even facts that disagree with his prefab opinions. If he was, he would have read it by now, only to have an idea of what the thread is about, don't you think? So, it seems this has lost any semblance of an actual discussion, so I'll be departing from this thread. You don't seem particularly capable of offering something in defense of your views so much as simply restating them in a derogatory tone. Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily trolls.

Talk about clumsy trolling.

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter. I recommend you start reading the link posted by Walsingham in the first post, then, if all you need are basic reading comprehension skills. Right, because who needs critical thinking anyway? <snip> I may have misused the word "theory", in a strictly scientific sense. Let me rephrase: what we have are a bunch of models. But those are even weaker than a theory, as far as establishing a basis for what is known goes. Models are used to simulate systems for convenience of observations sake, but they don't actually explain anything and are at the complete mercy of the assumptions of the scientists that built them. The "theory" that this increase in temperature is a result of human activity is in no way scientific... it's more like guesswork. Further, the ability to read and "basic knowledge" of the workings of science will get you nowhere (or rather, it will get you where others want you to be), as this issue is one of the most complex topics tackled by science, ever. I speak on a regular basis with actual scientists... you know, folks that advance science for a living. And a common theme among them is ignorance of the details and technical aspects involved. This is hardly surprising, as scientists don't do "general science", and most don't have the time nor the inclination to go through specialized literature and journals in their spare time, just for the hell of it. <snip> This is just flat out wrong, bud.

This is ridiculously close.

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter.

You don't know what a theory is, do you? And a single anonymous post won't raise any serious doubts except in people who don't know enough about the issue to have meaningful opinions, anyway.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/rea...?page=4#5445463 It's really, really close. Don't let Capcom win.

Oh noes, a single anonymous post is going to topple the general consensus of the entire scientific community and render years of data collection meaningless! The sheer amount of ignorance in this thread is depressing. There is no unified group of "warmists" conspiring to hold a giant fearmongering campaign to scare everyone into being treehuggers, there are simply people who look at the data and draw logical conclusions. Sure, on any issue there will be a few people who blow it out of proportion (I recently met a particularly dense woman who was convinced that global warming caused hurricane Katrina and was sure that it would bring about the end of the world as we know it, or something to that effect), but that's no reason to discredit an observable phenomenon with plenty of data to back it up. What I personally have yet to see is a prediction of where the climate will eventually level out. If the global average temperature raises slightly, sure, people who live in places barely above sea level are out of luck, but it's not going to end the world.

The only reasonable criticism I read in that article was the plot being written around the level design, and not vice-versa.

So, I checked my most played list and found this on top, and, having not listened to it for quite a while, wondered why it was there and thus listened to it again. I no longer wonder why it's there.

I stopped caring about gametrailers comments a looooooong time ago. The "mass effect 2 ripof!1!!!!!" ones are particularly laughable, given how the game started production before mass effect 1 even came out.

I don't know how people can complain about graphics, just watch the scene in which Mike uses bullet storm to start clearing a room. In fact, all of the combat footage in that interview minus the stuff we've already seen looked beautiful.

It's hardwired into the brain that killing others of your species is generally bad - it's even observable in other animals. This is a fairly simple evolutionary trait. Of course, it's possible to break this preconditioning. It's also possible to be born without it. As to which of these actually happened in this case, I don't think we know enough to determine. I certainly don't think that it was an emulation of what they saw on TV, as was implied by an earlier post.

I do love 80s speed metal.