warri0r45

Not amongst scientists (see Myth 3: http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462 ) Even oil companies accept it (hear the Chief Scientist at BP talking about how we need to quadruple energy efficiency: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_detai ... 1&ipp=1000 - the 90 minute talk contains a nice overview of the whole climate change area, based on numbers and from a source that many climate deniers will find acceptable, so I recommend it) In fact, the only debate seems to be amongst lay people. The podcast that I linked above contains some talk about why this might be the case. Basically, people can't see it happening, so they don't understand it. The real question is what can be done about climate change. Which is what this topic is about. I wouldn't say that. http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Th ... le8641.htm Why the emphasis on "catastrophic results" when the issue is to what degree humans contribute? If the benchmark for debate is the IPCC claiming that: Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 2001). then why is Schulte talking about things like "Quantitative evidence for the consensus" or "Mention of catastrophic climate change"? And like dusqi said, many of the papers surveyed in the Schulte analysis are neutral (48%). Schulte seems to think this adds to his point that there is "a significant movement of scientific opinion away from the apparently unanimous consensus", yet ironcally in science if people stop endorsing or rejecting a position it's probably because it's been established already. Shulte is definitely overcooking things here and not considering the prospect that lowered explicit/implicit acceptance of the consensus could mean that it's no longer an issue and is just taken for granted. Shulte's conclusion is rather telling, too (Shultes paper) "Conclusion There appears to be little basis in the peer reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients." Again, if the standard for debate is the IPCC's claim, then why on earth is he bringing politics and media into this? This is very suspicious and makes no sense as a strict scientific analysis. He's fluffing around with what it is he's actually testing.

Angry Chair by Alice in Chains.

I would have thought that the word of god would be divinely simple and wouldn't need interpretation, let alone the need to get a tertiary education to interpret it.

1) I never meant to say the painting itself was disgusting. You're right, disgusting is too strong a word, but I haven't said anything about the artistic merit of the painting, I even defended it from others. 2) However you said that being preoccupied with the blood was wrong, and that you even ignored it when evaluating the painting, which I'm sure you can agree is ridiculous. 3) Emotional and gut reactions are generally what artists hope to provoke, albeit not without further thought on it. Whether or not the artist wanted a reaction of disgust has very little to do with the reaction she's actually going to get. EDIT: To give an example to what I mean about the gut reactions - A person views the painting, the instant reaction might be "Period blood? Disgusting!". The person then finds a place where people are discussing the painting, this forum for example. A dialogue ensues. The person, seeing the opinions of those such as yourself begins to question why it's disgusting, realises he may have been hasty in his judgment, and the artist succeeds. 1) Sorry, I'm not trying to specifically criticise you or what you've said in this thread, I'm speaking more generally from my viewpoint on the matter. 2) Yes, I said that being preoccupied on the blood and the negative reaction to it is wrong, but where did I say I ignored that it was made of menstrual blood? I did say that the blood didn't bother me and perhaps emphasised it in a way that seems like I ignored it. Not true - I know it's there and I know it's part of the painting and is a major talking point. I was just offering a differing view from "it's disgusting" as that's what a lot of people believe. My emphasis is on saying that people shouldnt be preoccupied on the blood (and the emotional reactions to it) while ignoring the actual art. 3) I agree with all of this. Obviously people will have the reactions that they will. All I'm doing is disagreeing with them and offering my reaction to the paintings and how I view them.

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of. Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject. I think you fell into a trap instantly by judging the painting on its aesthetic value. That's just not how art (art, not pictures) is judged. Of course it's part of it, but no artist sets out to paint a pretty picture, they're trying to convey an emotion and a feeling. These pictures are nothing special, and I'm sure the artist herself knows that. The fact that they're done in menstrual blood is the entire idea behind them, she says so herself. If you subscribe to Francis Bacon's (the artist, not the philosopher) school of thought that art should convey an emotion without the boredom of its conveyance then you could say she's done a fantastic job. To ignore or skim over the fact that these paintings are done in blood is to miss the point entirely. Taking on board the point of the painting is one thing (and fine by me), but judging it based on an emotional reaction to the type of paint is another entirely. You're a smart guy - I'm sure you could see that all the calls of "it's disgusting" don't even come close to picking up on the real meaning that the artist is trying to convey, and that those kinds of reactions completely subjugate the actual art itself. If the artist really wanted to have everyone basically shout "gross", then she'd just fill a bucket with menstrual blood or show a pile of used tampons. Again, I think that many of the reactions in this thread don't do this art justice. Many of them are completely emotional reactions and it annoys me that people completely subjugate the piece of art because of that. And jack, this post is for you too. Edit: To add to my point, consider the artist's vision of what she wants her art to do, and compare it to your average response in this thread: If you're wondering, it's from the FAQ of the OP web site.

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of. Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject.

I can't believe so many people find the paintings disgusting. Barely anyone is taking the art for what it is and most people are thinking of period blood. What would people say if someone emulated a mona lisa in intricate detail with poop? Probably the same emotional reaction for some, at least.

If it wasn't for attention then she'd use normal paint. She said it's to make a statement. There's nothing wrong with making a statement, but people making them know that it works and gets people's attention. I hardly think so. It's a taking a natural bodily cycle which is perceived to be disgusting and making it into good looking art. It's only disgusting to you because all you think of is a bleeding uterus wall when looking at the art. Not everyone finds this stuff disgusting. I couldn't care less that it's menstrual cycle blood. I think it looks good.

The bee one is interesting. I remember seeing a piece on 60 minutes which explained that a parasite is killing the bees and therefore they can't stimulate pollination of many plants. The obvious result is that plants don't grow and we loose food production. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ybees.html

Along the lines of what jack said, it's probably a statement for attention, but this kind of stuff does work because we're obviously talking about it now. I think it's pretty interesting. The paintings look detailed and well done.

As for a particularly nasty pandemic, you could probably either isolate it on one continental land mass or isolate groups of people from the infected. We'd have to be mighty stupid to die out as an entire species from the disease itself. The pandemic game is unrealistic in the sense that if everyone in an entire country is becoming infected, people would invariably start isolating themselves from the disease and many of these people would have a good chance at avoiding it. As for global warming, it's a much weaker argument than a pandemic. Even if the increase in temperatures were three-fold what's suggested, we'd just move to the colder climates (towards the poles). Again, we'd have to be unbelievably stupid as a race to let that kill us all. Even thinking about something like nuclear war, I could still imagine the scenario of various survivors in bunkers around the world, perhaps even some people with contingency plans to live underground indefinitely. Having said that, I think nuclear war is a stronger argument than many. The final thing I could think of at the moment is the death of our sun in a few billion years. Though, by then, well probably be long gone. Entropy will be the death of us all in the end.

What do you mean "what's next?" Hospital-associated infections are a constant threat to the health of people with a weakened immune system. What's worse is that many of them, like MRSA and P. aeruginosa, are antibiotic resistant. You shouldn't substitute doing some actual research with what you hear in the media. Quite frankly, your attitude is an insult to people who actually have to deal with crap like MRSA.

According to who? Edit: Nevermind, I've found some information on the subject.

The point is that it's stupid running away from problems or pretending they don't exist simply because the consequences are a bitter pill to swallow. Saying that the theory of global warming is bringing more harm then good and then making a judgment on whether it's true or not is as stupid as me saying that Salmonella is bad therefore lets all pretend it doesnt exist.

Salmonella sucks too. Lets just humour ourselves and say it no longer exists.

Well how exactly would you or the ipcc know exactly by how much the tempurature will increase? If there is loads of volcanic eruptions in that time will it change the tempurature and by how much? What if man made carbon dioxide increases? And you don't think scientists factor that kind of thing in? Global warming won't eradicate the human race, but it will make living conditions untenable in some places. Droughts are looking like the norm for Australia from now on, unfortunately.

Personally, I'd respect other people just because that's the way I am. Those are my personal sensibilities that I've grown up with and developed over time. My personal approach would be to be respectful in the church (although, admittedly, I'd never go to one because it's of no interest to me) but as for the extravagant costumes of the gay pride parades, I couldn't care less what they wear. You may have a different opinion to mine. But do you think personal sensibilities are enough? Do you feel that it should be passed in law to "be respectful to other people"? If so, who determines what's respectful and what's not? If you should be legislated to wear more than a thong in a gay pride parade or to wear "normal" attire in church, should you legislate for everyone to say please and thank you as well? A respect law would be the absolute worst thing every. Why in the hell would I want that? All I said is that a lot of gay people are just trolls in real life. You might be respectful in a church but they sure aren't. Why should gay people get taxpayer money to dance around in pink and leather clothes when the city is going bankrupt? Well, that's a different issue entirely. When it comes to using taxpayer money for things, I think the organisation should fund the event themselves if they can. Having said that, if they can't, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate their cause, just as the detractors have the right to disagree. You could imagine what the world would be like if no one could legally demonstrate their cause wed all just be pansies to governments with no readily noticeable recourse to show them theres something they need to pay attention to. Just on that point, it's interesting that the Catholic Church, as incredibly rich as they are, still needed 110 million dollars of Australian taxpayer money to host "World Youth Day." Do you think they should use taxpayer money? Apparently unlike yourself, the pink and leather clothes don't bother me, so that doesn't factor into my thinking.

Personally, I'd respect other people just because that's the way I am. Those are my personal sensibilities that I've grown up with and developed over time. My personal approach would be to be respectful in the church (although, admittedly, I'd never go to one because it's of no interest to me) but as for the extravagant costumes of the gay pride parades, I couldn't care less what they wear. You may have a different opinion to mine. But do you think personal sensibilities are enough? Do you feel that it should be passed in law to "be respectful to other people"? If so, who determines what's respectful and what's not? If you should be legislated to wear more than a thong in a gay pride parade or to wear "normal" attire in church, should you legislate for everyone to say please and thank you as well?

Of course, no one likes being directly antagonised, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the expectations of society for everyone to adhere to some nonsense fairytale of "normality." By the way, how do these particular gays antagonise you? How do they rub it in people's faces?

Yeah, it seems that the first moments of the game are the most productive for getting evolution points. For some reason they dry up a bit when you infect more countries and people (have you noticed this?) which is completely opposite to what you'd actually expect. The best I've done is infected all but one country, and it's usually one isolated by sea (Indonesia, Australia, Madigascar, etc). I usually start over when it gets to that point.

It seems that you need to get it undetectable and infectious enough to transmit to every country, then ramp up the lethality to kill everyone. That's about the point that they start shutting things down. At that point, they've got no recourse but a vaccine. They usually take ages to produce anyway.

If i were a homosexual, I don't think I'd want people to recognise me as "normal," I'd rather people get over this nonsense that everyone in society ought to be "normal." Theres a difference between just a regular guy who happens to be gay and the guys at the gay pride parade. What's your point, exactly? That everyone in society ought to adhere to jackattack's sense of normality?

Some nasty examples of pandemics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu The Spanish flu is pretty much your precedent for the biggest and baddest viral pandemics. These days there's much more of an emphasis on contingency plans for global pandemics or more regional epidemics. The knowledge to catch these things early and isolate infected people along with the advent of new drugs has helped a lot. Retroviruses like various flu strains are still a pain in the [wagon] for us because they mutate so much, but I somehow doubt we'll see another event as severe as the Spanish flu.

Agreed. If kids have the expectation to get all pure fact or absolute truths in science classes then the science classes are failing to teach what science is/does. What makes you think the scientific method is a method of absolutely proving things? What makes you think that every scientific idea must be recreated in a lab? The scientific method isn't defined absolutely but it basically includes observation, hypothesis forming, hypothesis testing, and then rejection or support for the hypothesis. An extra step, if applicable, is forming testable theoretical constructs to explain some aspect or multiple aspects of nature. Theories don't indicate a low level of certainty because theory in science and theory every day use is different. At the end of the day, the tested idea is only as good as its best evidence/confirmed tests and if its the case that the big bang theory is being taught in schools with little emphasis on uncertainties, then its probably the case that there is a significant level of certainty about it in the scientific community. To address another point, we don't need to exactly recreate things ourselves to make them scientific. For example, we know that the sun is made of hydrogen and helium and we know all kinds of other incredible things about the universe, but we can't recreate these things here on earth. Having said that, we can recreate some extreme conditions in controlled circumstances (such as in atom smashers) to test the predictions of theories like the big bang. If such a method of testing isnt at our disposal, then we test a theorys prediction with observational adherence to it. In these ways, theories pertaining to things we can't recreate directly can be tested. As another example, Im sure you know that you can't actually recreate a murder scene, but you can use forensics to put various suspects to the test. Ill take it that youre mistaking recreation of some phenomenon with repetition of study results, which is actually an important scientific principle, arguably on par with testability.

You and I know that normal has nothing to do with right or wrong, but some other people make out that it does. Good to see you're not one of them. Sorry if my comment seemed judgemental towards you, it was directed more generally.