Stuff Republicans say.

[Midnight Rain]

Thanx for the link, but I cannot watch Mr O'Reilly.
(Weak stomach.)

Actually something REALLY interesting I had never seen before talks about the after affects to it and how Bill O'reily really is just a persona.

 

[Revoltingest]

That often was interpreted that way during most of our history but the SCOTUS in more recent decades have been gradually ruling in the other direction. IOW, it's not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Constitutionally, we are a secular society.

The problem with their argument is that "God" is not only presumes a supreme being (which is religion, albeit a nebulous about it), but "God" is a proper name for the Xian god. This makes it clearly religion. They certainly wouldn't consider other names for a god, eg, "Allah", "FSM".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The American Taliban at work. Seriously, these people are worse threats to America than the Islamic terrorists because they have enough power to enforce big government control over what people wear - just like the Taliban does.

And the current law - life in prison for indecent exposure three times. I suppose it's better to have life in prison than to have your head chopped off, but seriously the Taliban Republicans are clear and present dangers to America and need to be treated as such by the government.

Even the reduced sentence to five years is utterly outrageous. This is truly big government at it's utter worst.

“Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said.

A person convicted three times for indecent exposure could be sentenced to life in jail and fined $10,000 under current state law, but Moore’s bill would limit that to five years in jail and $5,000.

Montana Taliban: Republican lawmaker wants to arrest and jail women for wearing yoga pants

Remind me to never go to Montana. A jail sentence for clothing should be automatically ruled cruel and unusual.

 

[Revoltingest]

Remind me to never go to Montana. A jail sentence for clothing should be automatically ruled cruel and unusual.

So long as it's one guy proposing this law, & the legislature hasn't passed it, you needn't worry.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Remember the clown-car debates by the Pub candidates in 2012, the most of which when asked said they didn't believe in evolution. And most disagreed that we're in a state of global warming, even though it's clearly obvious we are because our knowledge of this is based on actual measurements taken over the last couple of centuries versus just mathematical models.

Clearly the majority of us don't believe in evolution, global warming or Bigfoot, just as the majority of common people didn't believe in Stalin's farming techniques, Hitler's superior races, Mao's atheism, or global cooling when they were 'undeniable science'

Everybody loves 'science' the method, 'science' the ideological/political label used to oppress freedom of thought, is something else entirely

 

[metis]

Clearly the majority of us don't believe in evolution, global warming or Bigfoot...

People whom don't understand evolution and what the evidence for global warming is are hardly those that we need running this society, but silencing them is certainly not what I'd ever be in favor of.

Everybody loves 'science' the method, 'science' the ideological/political label used to oppress freedom of thought, is something else entirely

Science doesn't oppress freedom of thought and, as a matter of fact, folks that consider themselves to be so religious are far more apt to do just that. Anyone whom has ever studied world history should be aware of the oppression both science and freedom of thought suffered from by religious leadership and their constituents.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Clearly the majority of us don't believe in evolution, global warming or Bigfoot,

It doesn't stop them from being true. And its a wonder why the more educated individuals and societies tend to be the more they are likely to accept these with the exception of bigfoot.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

People whom don't understand evolution and what the evidence for global warming is are hardly those that we need running this society, but silencing them is certainly not what I'd ever be in favor of.



Science doesn't oppress freedom of thought and, as a matter of fact, folks that consider themselves to be so religious are far more apt to do just that. Anyone whom has ever studied world history should be aware of the oppression both science and freedom of thought suffered from by religious leadership and their constituents.

Then let the majority speak and be represented, that's democracy- not everybody likes it (pro-'science' atheists like Stalin, Mao, Il Sung certainly didn't).

Either you are intellectually superior to most people, or you are missing something. In my experience skeptics are generally far better informed on both topics, but that doesn't make them right either.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't stop them from being true. And its a wonder why the more educated individuals and societies tend to be the more they are likely to accept these with the exception of bigfoot.

actually global warming is most accepted amongst people with high school education or less, graduates in science are more likely to consider it scientifically illiterate garbage...

but that doesn't make anything right or wrong.

Science is about not having to take other people's word for it. what is your understanding of how an extra couple molecules of CO2 in 10,000 of air disrupts the climate?

 

[metis]

Then let the majority speak and be represented, that's democracy- not everybody likes it (pro-'science' atheists like Stalin, Mao, Il Sung certainly didn't).

Either you are intellectually superior to most people, or you are missing something. In my experience skeptics are generally far better informed on both topics, but that doesn't make them right either.

Apparently for some reason you didn't comprehend what I wrote, namely that I have no desire, nor do scientists as a whole have a desire, to silence either the majority or a minority, so it seems that you're barking up the wrong tree and probably the wrong woods.

Secondly, the basic ToE has been well established, the issue of global warming is based on actual measurements and not estimates nor mathematical models, so anyone whom denies either really are not dealing with science. However, even if they are quite ignorant of the research or are even dishonest, I have no interest in silencing them.

 

[metis]

actually global warming is most accepted amongst people with high school education or less, graduates in science are more likely to consider it scientifically illiterate garbage...

Science is about not having to take other people's word for it. what is your understanding of how an extra couple molecules of CO2 in 10,000 of air disrupts the climate?

I don't know where you're getting your "information" from, but it sorta sounds like an equivalent of Grimm's Fairy Tales. For starters, you might check out the Wikipedia site on "global warming", for it actually does supply you with scientific links, and then you might also check out the NASA and Scientific American sites on the same subject.

The CO2 rate is much higher than you're stating above, and it's been known for almost two centuries now that higher levels of CO2 tend to create the "greenhouse effect", which probably even most elementary students have learned about.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Apparently for some reason you didn't comprehend what I wrote, namely that I have no desire, nor do scientists as a whole have a desire, to silence either the majority or a minority, so it seems that you're barking up the wrong tree and probably the wrong woods.

Secondly, the basic ToE has been well established, the issue of global warming is based on actual measurements and not estimates nor mathematical models, so anyone whom denies either really are not dealing with science. However, even if they are quite ignorant of the research or are even dishonest, I have no interest in silencing them.

People whom don't understand evolution and what the evidence for global warming is are hardly those that we need running this society

I disagree, I think the people running society should represent that society, not be a minority elite who claim to own knowledge and intellectual superiority.


How much global warming is being measured in Boston right now?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know where you're getting your "information" from, but it sorta sounds like an equivalent of Grimm's Fairy Tales. For starters, you might check out the Wikipedia site on "global warming", for it actually does supply you with scientific links, and then you might also check out the NASA and Scientific American sites on the same subject.

The CO2 rate is much higher than you're stating above, and it's been known for almost two centuries now that higher levels of CO2 tend to create the "greenhouse effect", which probably even most elementary students have learned about.

Do the math metis, actually 2 molecules extra is exaggerating, it's currently a little over 1.

pre- industrial was around 275ppm, around 400ppm now. 125 ppm extra= 1.25 in 10,000

the greenhouse effect operates overwhelmingly on water vapor, not CO2, that's why the ordivician ice age existed with >4000 ppm CO2.

125 ppm extra technically has an effect, albeit negligible- mostly in the coldest regions, at night.. what horror! That's why you need a computer sim to multiply this into a Hollywood disaster movie.

 

[metis]

I disagree, I think the people running society should represent that society, not be a minority elite who claim to own knowledge and intellectual superiority.


How much global warming is being measured in Boston right now?

First of all, global warming does not affect all regions of the world the same way. Matter of fact, some areas can be overall colder for even an extended period of time.

Secondly, I noticed that you answered quickly after I sent my last post, which obviously did not give you enough time to check out what I had recommended you do, therefore it appears you're really not at all interested in science.

And finally, and let me repeat, it is totally disingenuous for you to imply that I and/or science in general suggesting silencing anyone, so I am in no way saying any "elite" should be running the show.

 

[metis]

Do the math metis, actually 2 molecules extra is exaggerating, it's currently a little over 1.

pre- industrial was around 275ppm, around 400ppm now. 125 ppm extra= 1.25 in 10,000

the greenhouse effect operates overwhelmingly on water vapor, not CO2, that's why the ordivician ice age existed with >4000 ppm CO2.

125 ppm extra technically has an effect, albeit negligible- mostly in the coldest regions, at night.. what horror! That's why you need a computer sim to multiply this into a Hollywood disaster movie.

Oh yes, all those folks at NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, etc. are so ignorant about this. You should write them and tell them just how wrong they are and how you know so much more than they. Let me know what they say back in return to your expertise, OK?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh yes, all those folks at NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, etc. are so ignorant about this. You should write them and tell them just how wrong they are and how you know so much more than they. Let me know what they say back in return to your expertise, OK?

actually they know, all 70 models were wrong, the debate now even among them is more about the 'pause' as they call it- where the warming went, why the models were wrong- some are still in denial of course

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First of all, global warming does not affect all regions of the world the same way. Matter of fact, some areas can be overall colder for even an extended period of time.

Secondly, I noticed that you answered quickly after I sent my last post, which obviously did not give you enough time to check out what I had recommended you do, therefore it appears you're really not at all interested in science.

And finally, and let me repeat, it is totally disingenuous for you to imply that I and/or science in general suggesting silencing anyone, so I am in no way saying any "elite" should be running the show.

No, as a form of insulation, it should effect higher latitudes, colder regions more, at night, during winter. It should also mean less wind because of the reduced contrast in hot/cold air masses and hence less violent weather overall.

ie. not record blizzards in the n hemisphere at night


Venus is a perfect example- almost solid CO2 atmos- baking hot, and hardly a breath of surface wind- because it is evenly heated

If you scratch the surface of global warming theory beyond glossy grocery store mags and high school curriculum, you'd realize that not even the wackiest climastrologers claim that a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 has any direct significant effect.
That's all down to the infamous 'positive feedback' loops simulated in computer programs. Principle in these has long been the albedo effect- where a tiny bit of warming focused on the poles, would mean less snow, less reflection and hence more warming in a runaway feedback loop.
Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show that Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent exceeded 22 million square kilometers this fall (September, October, and November) exceeding the previous greatest fall extent recorded in 1976.

 

[metis]

No, as a form of insulation, it should effect higher latitudes, colder regions more, at night, during winter. It should also mean less wind because of the reduced contrast in hot/cold air masses and hence less violent weather overall. Venus is a perfect example- almost solid CO2 atmos- baking hot, and hardly a breath of surface wind- because it is evenly heated

If you scratch the surface of global warming theory beyond glossy grocery store mags and high school curriculum, you'd realize that not even the wackiest climastrologers claim that a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 has any direct significant effect.
That's all down to the infamous 'positive feedback' loops simulated in computer programs. Principle in these has long been the albedo effect- where a tiny bit of warming focused on the poles, would mean less snow, less reflection and hence more warming in a runaway feedback loop.
Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show that Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent exceeded 22 million square kilometers this fall (September, October, and November) exceeding the previous greatest fall extent recorded in 1976.

 

[metis]

actually they know, all 70 models were wrong, the debate now even among them is more about the 'pause' as they call it- where the warming went, why the models were wrong- some are still in denial of course

How many times do I have to post that why we know that there is global warming is because of the stats based on actual measurements, not models.

[Where's that head-banging against the wall icon?]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're obviously extremely well informed in this area