Ha didn't know that they use something else than black powder today.
Plenty of those on here, can easily be spotted when you ask them to do a little research on the opinion channel's statements they like so much and they either outright decline or get very quiet very quickly.
Good to know someone promotes to actually have knowledge (and training) especially about guns before let loose into public with them.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
You're really really deeply hurt aren't you?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
In contrary to those that are happy with the headlines that appear to confirm their bias I like to do a little fact check at least as far as I can or understand it.
Also in contrary to others I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and to enter into an honest conversation, rather than chickening out at the first opportunity when it gets a little uncomfortable.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Who are you trying to convince? My whole point about climate change is that there are competing valid scientific viewpoints that aren't the product of an oil industry conspiracy and they raise legitimate questions that fly in the face of the certainty of conclusions drawn uniformly among scientists who study the behavior and effects of the Earth's climate, past, present and future. They raise enough issues to suggest that action-oriented policies based on the predictions of climate science, derived from models developed by climate science, could very well be premature. Also I make the point that when science and a proposed crisis collide there's a danger of science becoming corrupted by the zealotry of the call for vital action.
In terms of what should be done, right now I tend to agree with Scott Adams: It would be wise to wait on making large-scale transformations based on the current understanding. Power-generation technology is rapidly improving, our understanding of the contribution of factors other than C02 is improving, and I can see today that our ability to actually predict what's going to happen to the climate at large and medium scales in the short and medium term is fuzzy at best, despite all of the models and time spent working on them. I'd like to see less zealotry and more focus on answering questions. You don't watch SO on the regular so you likely don't know that Ben's argument is never that any one of the papers he cites "presents evidence with an argument that overturns current climate science conclusions." His point is that when you look at all of them and start adding up the concerns raised in each one there appears a large body of evidence that validly questions the certainty of the current conclusions of climate scientists. We've seen this in other areas of study - look at Randal Carlson and his work on the Sphynx ancient flood geography: by stepping outside of the bubble of Egyptology and bringing in geologists he's been able to present evidence that stabs directly at the heart of current conclusions about the Sphynx's age.
Stepping back and taking a top-down look at things that incorporates information from other scientific disciplines has frequently produced eureka revelations about important topics of study, clarifying them or taking them in new directions that result in more correct conclusions than what had previously been put forth. My position has always been to choose uncertainty over certainty when there's evidence suggesting the certainty is unwarranted, and to include valid information from as many areas as possible instead of just throwing my eggs into one basket so I can be certain when it's not warranted.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"My whole point about climate change is that there are competing valid scientific viewpoints that aren't the product of an oil industry conspiracy and they raise legitimate questions"
But you only rely on "alternative layman science", that even when they mention possible discrepancies they make it hard to follow up (as in your latest contribution to the discussion) because it is not in the description of the video but in the video itself. So whoever wants to check has to type rather than copy and paste. I typed and checked some (you checked none of course this is why I don't take you or the other dipsticks seriously), none of which came back with "current climate change research is all wrong", not even with "study shows significant errors in climate models"
You are happy to rely and wank over opinions provided by others that feed your bias, nothing more nothing less. Very skepty, LOL.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Good to know someone promotes to actually have knowledge (and training) especially about guns before let loose into public with them.
I don't believe he ever argues that citizens should have to prove "knowledge and training" before obtaining permission to exercise a fundamental right.
He promotes training, sure. But that's far from your argument that everyone should have to kiss the hand of some government lacky before being granted permission to obtain an effective tool of self-defense.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"some government lacky" also gives permission what and how you can build or convert in your house. In the US. With worse restrictions than in other western countries.
Comments
(Old Spike)
Ha didn't know that they use something else than black powder today.
Plenty of those on here, can easily be spotted when you ask them to do a little research on the opinion channel's statements they like so much and they either outright decline or get very quiet very quickly.
Good to know someone promotes to actually have knowledge (and training) especially about guns before let loose into public with them.
(Old Spike)
You're really really deeply hurt aren't you?
(Old Spike)
In contrary to those that are happy with the headlines that appear to confirm their bias I like to do a little fact check at least as far as I can or understand it.
Also in contrary to others I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and to enter into an honest conversation, rather than chickening out at the first opportunity when it gets a little uncomfortable.
(Old Spike)
Who are you trying to convince? My whole point about climate change is that there are competing valid scientific viewpoints that aren't the product of an oil industry conspiracy and they raise legitimate questions that fly in the face of the certainty of conclusions drawn uniformly among scientists who study the behavior and effects of the Earth's climate, past, present and future. They raise enough issues to suggest that action-oriented policies based on the predictions of climate science, derived from models developed by climate science, could very well be premature. Also I make the point that when science and a proposed crisis collide there's a danger of science becoming corrupted by the zealotry of the call for vital action.
In terms of what should be done, right now I tend to agree with Scott Adams: It would be wise to wait on making large-scale transformations based on the current understanding. Power-generation technology is rapidly improving, our understanding of the contribution of factors other than C02 is improving, and I can see today that our ability to actually predict what's going to happen to the climate at large and medium scales in the short and medium term is fuzzy at best, despite all of the models and time spent working on them. I'd like to see less zealotry and more focus on answering questions. You don't watch SO on the regular so you likely don't know that Ben's argument is never that any one of the papers he cites "presents evidence with an argument that overturns current climate science conclusions." His point is that when you look at all of them and start adding up the concerns raised in each one there appears a large body of evidence that validly questions the certainty of the current conclusions of climate scientists. We've seen this in other areas of study - look at Randal Carlson and his work on the Sphynx ancient flood geography: by stepping outside of the bubble of Egyptology and bringing in geologists he's been able to present evidence that stabs directly at the heart of current conclusions about the Sphynx's age.
Stepping back and taking a top-down look at things that incorporates information from other scientific disciplines has frequently produced eureka revelations about important topics of study, clarifying them or taking them in new directions that result in more correct conclusions than what had previously been put forth. My position has always been to choose uncertainty over certainty when there's evidence suggesting the certainty is unwarranted, and to include valid information from as many areas as possible instead of just throwing my eggs into one basket so I can be certain when it's not warranted.
(Old Spike)
"My whole point about climate change is that there are competing valid scientific viewpoints that aren't the product of an oil industry conspiracy and they raise legitimate questions"
But you only rely on "alternative layman science", that even when they mention possible discrepancies they make it hard to follow up (as in your latest contribution to the discussion) because it is not in the description of the video but in the video itself. So whoever wants to check has to type rather than copy and paste. I typed and checked some (you checked none of course this is why I don't take you or the other dipsticks seriously), none of which came back with "current climate change research is all wrong", not even with "study shows significant errors in climate models"
You are happy to rely and wank over opinions provided by others that feed your bias, nothing more nothing less. Very skepty, LOL.
(Old Spike)
Good to know someone promotes to actually have knowledge (and training) especially about guns before let loose into public with them.
I don't believe he ever argues that citizens should have to prove "knowledge and training" before obtaining permission to exercise a fundamental right.
He promotes training, sure. But that's far from your argument that everyone should have to kiss the hand of some government lacky before being granted permission to obtain an effective tool of self-defense.
(Old Spike)
"some government lacky" also gives permission what and how you can build or convert in your house. In the US. With worse restrictions than in other western countries.