magekillr

Well perhaps it won't happen within our lifetimes, but it could get very serious very quickly. And you mention oil, when you're forgetting that coal is the biggest contributor. Here's a reason to limit CO2, and it has nothing to do with climate change: Ocean Acidification This is why it's so important and has such a high impact on how humans live. And yet on this very thread, people deny the science. Maybe they'll accept the science of ocean acidification if they ignore global warming. Both are going to affect our food supply deeply.

I heard they lied about the link between cigarettes and cancer. Oh wait, no, that was climate change denialist PR head group the George C. Marshall Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

Hmmm, interesting. You know why people are worried about glaciers melting? It's not because we'll have less ice in the world; it's because glaciers provide water to millions (possibly billions) of people. Btw, you're wrong about Antarctica gaining ice,,or at least halfway wrong because you can't differentiate between land and sea ice. Not hard for a quick google, mate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm Wow, do you think people talking about climate change are yelling about the damage done to Earth? While that's very important, most (99%?) people only care about that because of the danger it does to our own species and other organisms. Why do you think people are yelling and screaming about the dangers? We're talking mass human suffering, mass displacement of people, mass starvation, mass dehydration. This is the exact problem we're trying to prevent. Maybe you don't care about our species surviving, but most (99%) of people do. Oh, and even as much as the AP fails as a news organization, they came out with this little cookie today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

Here's a good article on this very subject (the effects of benevolent sexism): http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq.htm An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. By Glick, Peter; Fiske, Susan in the American Psychologist. Vol 56(2), Feb 2001, 109-118.

This thread makes me want to throw up. Nothing but sexist diatribe, falsities, and disgusting stereotypes. Well, in your opening statement you manage to get the sexist talking points down pat. First off, feminists aren't women who "don't shave their armpits" or "burn their bras." These are nothing but false caricatures that try and make feminism appear like a radical ideology. What proof do you have that these women don't shave their armpits, for one? You're assuming this on a negative stereotype of what you perceive feminism to be. Ugh, what the hell are you talking about? Does there have to be anything "feminine" about feminism? There's such a thing as male feminists, myself included. Ugh again. No, this is NOT what feminists do. Feminists fight for equality, feminists fight your negative stereotypes about us. Feminists argue for equal rights and equal opportunity. No, we're not there yet, sorry, Charlie. What you view as feminists telling girls that it's "wrong" to stay in the house is your own false perception, and it's the sexism in our patriarchal society that has allowed this to bubble to the top. If women choose to be housewives, that is their choice; if they choose to be in the workforce, that is again their choice. It's those who are *expected* to stay home or who stay home because institutionalized sexism make it imprudent for them not to. That's the problem. Um, because for thousands of years and in today's society, women are treated as though they are not equals, and it resonates throughout your entire post. It's not about being a housewife, it's being treated as a maid, an object, a piece of property. That's what has happened for thousands of years. Your happy-go-lucky view of how women have been treated and continue to be treated is on equal footing with Columbus's voyage to North America in children's history books. Oh, deciding what's best for themselves is somehow taking away their "womanhood?" I guess they have to rely on men like you to decide what's best for women, huh? Lol, well that all depends. Which society are you talking about? America? Not really; Maine just voted down gay marriage equality in case you missed it. Sure a lot of us are striving for equality, but people like you are standing in the way. Women make roughly 75% of what men make for doing the same work in America. Millions of people still believe rape is partially the woman's fault if she was drunk (and I bet a good portion of the sexist pigs here believe this themselves). The moral arc of the universe might bend towards justice, but it doesn't mean there won't be dents and hiccups along the way; this post is testament to that. The stereotype part; the fact that women are viewed as lower. LOL! Our society is doing this? PLEASE! Our society is so sexist it's not even funny. I mean, Sarah Palin, objectively one of the biggest sexists in politics, while very unintelligent and deserving a lot of the criticism she gets, is still treated with [cabbage] sexist male perceptions. Granted, she's hanging around the wrong crowd and is somewhat self loathing, but last time I heard, men weren't put on the front cover of Newsweek in short shorts with a picture that wasn't intended to be used in the way it was. You'll say "but she took the picture!!!" Yeah, she did take the picture, but it wasn't meant to be used as a pinup for Newsweek to make more sales to horny guys, and that's exactly why Newsweek used the cover they did. They could have picked any picture of her, but they chose the one. Not to mention the sexist crap that followed immediately afterwards: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/16/sitroom.03.html Here's the cover I'm talking about: No, it's not the wrong thing to do. It's wrong to have perceptions about women as if it's what they're supposed to do when they grow up. That's what you don't get. Feminism is the radical idea that women are people. Today's feminism focuses on abortion, equal pay for equal work, and to get rid of the false perceptions and stereotypes that exist in our media, our society, and everyday life. Just because women can walk outside without a man accompanying them--strange thing, I know!--doesn't mean sexism is over. It focuses on abortion because abortion is not about life or death, but about control over one's body; let's not kid ourselves here, because that's what this debate is really about. Men want to control what women do with their bodies. It focuses on equal pay for equal work because women are consistently paid less for the same work in America, and in Europe. Granted Europe is a little skewed because it involves the poorer and less equal countries, but the disparity is still quite large. Perhaps you should actually see what feminism is really about, instead of viewing it for what you think it is. The sexism in the media is obviously apparent here, because nothing in your OP has anything to do with feminism, and sounds more like something Rush "feminazi" Limbaugh would say.

Hello, Tomato. Ready for finals? I want to kill myself already.

Potholer54 destroys the conspiracy argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=sub Love. It. Your evidence for this? Or do you just say things without having evidence? http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/vineland-was-full-of-grapes.php I guess regional drought and food shortages aren't on your list of top concern? Not to mention the amount of civil war and terrorism that will plague the South Asian and Middle Eastern region, as well as Africa. If there is a World War III, it will be in that region involving Pakistan and India, and it will be over water. These two countries are nuclear. Perhaps you should look at the world around you, and notice that crops don't do as well in your own backyard in Iowa with warmer climate.

I'm still waiting for skeptics and deniers to show evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong. And yes, there is indeed a consensus. In the meantime, I found this entry entertaining: Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676 Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers: Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672 Manipulation of evidence: Newton to Keill, May 15 1674 Knowingly publishing scientific fraud: Newton to Cotes June 15 1710 Suppression of evidence: Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711 Abusing the peer review system: Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711 Insulting their critics: Cotes to Jones, November 11 1711 Gravity does not extend so far from Earth that it can be the force holding the moon to its orbit; school students are increasingly reluctant to practice differential equations, that will only lead to the practice of more oppressive forms of higher math; the tide is turning against over-regulation, like Newtons laws of motion and Universal Gravitation. The so called Cartesian, skeptical view is now also the majority view. Unfortunately weve a long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in classical mechanics, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. But if the Newton / Royal Society mail scandal is true, it is a blow to the Renaissance lobbys credibility which is never likely to recover. http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/

Maybe he deserves nothing but pain and anguish; I certainly don't want to be the one to determine that, nor do I believe I have the capacity to make it. However, do you know what I know for a fact that he deserves? A fair trial.

Well, I guess we could go to Glenn Beck's America, where war crimes are fun: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911250011 That seems to be what a seemingly high number on here are doing, and have long advocated. "Just shoot them in the head!" "The terrorists got what they deserved, who cares what the SEALs did!" It's almost like if the SEALs killed them themselves, you people wouldn't have a problem with it. No wonder America got away with torture and no one cares.

They should face assault charges if, you know, they're guilty of assault. We'll know if they're guilty of assault if they're taken to court, and by the court's legal analysis. That's the beauty of the rule of law, and why America's justice system, as flawed as it is, is still far more wonderful and fair than many around the world. I'm sorry that many of you people are willing to throw the rule of law out based on the people, and who you think are the "worst of the worst," but that's not how a fair justice system works. You commit a crime, you are charged with said crime, and you are given your time in court. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. Given that many people in Guantanamo are still not given their time in court and might not ever be given it, this doesn't always apply, but that's how it works. I'm sorry that because you think they did something horrible that you believe they should be treated differently in the rule of law, and it's kind of pathetic. I guess we should go back to the days of Kings and Queens.

"Why don't we fund things into Africa instead?" This is why: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375949.stm

That's the one complaint I have about it, it really is barely a scientific issue anymore because of how political it is. And I'm having a hard time believing that it every prediction about it is true because instead of researching it further the option just seems to be find new ways to scare people into voting for you. Regardless it still goes without saying that there shouldn't be so much pollution. Economics is politicized just as much; just look at a majority of Americans who think that unemployment will go up if we cut the stimulus. Yeah, it sucks that economic issues are politicized (like when the idiotic leftists argue for rent control or living wages), and it sucks just as much that environmental issues are politicized, but it's how it is. I'm not sure which predictions you're referring to, though. I don't like Al Gore running around with his advocacy, I think he's hurting the cause more than helping it. For one, he's trying to win people over by stating the "facts" with fear mongering. "ZOMG OCEANS WILL RISE X AMOUNT OF FEET IF WE LET THIS SHEET MELT!" Correct, Gore, but the sheet won't melt for a long time at the current rates. Meanwhile you have people who are already "skeptical" about a non-controversial issue in the science community because of said fear mongering. Still, he's not nearly as bad as the people shelling out denial like the OP; they're in a league of their own. In America, supporting doing something about climate change isn't really politically positive. Most voters don't believe in evolution, so I can't imagine a large percentage believe in climate change. Not to mention the right wing constantly talks about clean coal and shale, two things that greatly contribute to climate change, and nuclear (nuclear power is a good thing, the left needs to stfu and accept it). In any case, they are continuing to research it. Less than a decade ago we couldn't explain why the Ordovician had an ice age despite such high amounts of carbon. We knew that the solar output was much weaker, but the temperatures were still warmer than expected; the lower level of sun output should have made it go into an ice age alone. The reason for these warmer temperatures was because of the amount of carbon, however. But, why was there an ice age if there was such high levels of carbon? Well, thanks to research, recent research, we now know why. The oceanic crust in the northern Atlantic was going underneath the North American continent, and pushed up a substantial amount of Earth (a rise in the Appalachian Mountains). The CO2 would react with the rock, get stuck in the sea, and that's where all of the carbon went. Thus, we have substantial reductions in carbon, mixed with lower solar output, to explain the ice age during a time with huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's a good thing I read the news everyday and see popular articles, or else I wouldn't have a response already saved: Quote from my friend Andy, a meteorologist PhD student: And a little bit from me: no, it's not a hoax, and it's probably the most dire threat to the human race right now.

I'm not sure how many of you have seen the newest sensational YouTube video sweeping the world, but it's a video with a new way that Chinese are eating fish. The carp is partially deep fried and eaten alive. Here is the video and a news article from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6595481/Chinese-diners-eat-live-fish-in-YouTube-video.html What are your thoughts on this issue specifically, and animal rights in general? Obviously PETA was quick to denounce this, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal. They don't have the mammalian higher brain structures implicated in consciousness, and I don't think there's very much confidence in any theories of them being self-aware. Is it cruel? Meh, maybe, but I think many other issues relating to this could be debated as cruel to a varying degree, such as caged-chickens. Yeah, I know that organizations like PETA are also against that, and unless you eat completely organically like the Amish or something, there's not much arguing room. I think the argument comes down to "necessary" and "unnecessary" cruelty. I draw the line on organisms that have higher brain development than fish. So have at it: what are your overall thoughts on this specifically, and animal rights in general?

Probably getting stoned, drunk and/or going to a party/bar. Although, I might have to be a designated driver that night...I gotta check the list. FML if I do; I had to DD this past weekend, that's enough for October. I need to think of a good costume... :unsure:

Please stop. Please. This. Getting sick to death of how awesome America is. :wall: Hey, if there's one person on this forum who cannot stand America's hegemony and has been called an America-hater repeatedly, it would be me; remember, I'm an ultra leftist, pinko, unAmerican, commie, facist, hippie liberal. I was just stating a poll that was recently taken, and again, it's not my fault that the world has a new found respect for America that it lost these past 8 years. It could very well be lost again. For now, the world has been given a new hope and change of mind about how they view America. It's as undeniable as climate change

Please stop. Please. Ok: http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE59447120091005

Exactly. I mean, there probably *were* people more deserving, but that's not how the award always works. Frankly, I probably wouldn't have voted for him if I were in the committee, but I can still see him as worthy of the award, even if he wasn't the *most* worthy. As usual, Rachel puts everything into perfect perspective. Go, Rachel! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o And here's some quotes: - Archbishop Desmond Tutu. John Pastore, physician, co-recipient of the 1985 Nobel award to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. - Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader and 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Shimon Peres, Israeli President

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, as was Henry Kissinger. Please stop with your usual partisan hackery, and be happy for your president...for once. It's not the world's fault that the GOP has been nothing but war mongering trash since Ronald Reagan. Did Kissinger deserve it? Not really, so why'd they give it to him? They gave it to him in 1974 to reinforce the notion of peace: the withdrawal from Vietnam. Henry Kissinger is perhaps the most amoral man the US government has ever had at its helm, but it was given to him in hopes that he would follow what he started in Vietnam: strength through peace, not the opposite. Did TR deserve it? No, not really. Although Teddy Roosevelt would be considered far to the left of the current Democratic party, he was still a bit of a war monger. However, once again, to reinforce the notion that he'd continue being peaceful, he won it for his efforts in Japan and Russia. And then you can go to the other people who frankly didn't accomplish anything when they were awarded it, but it was what they stood for that mattered. Desmond Tutu was awarded it 10 years before apartheid ended in South Africa. He didn't accomplish anything, but they gave it to him to bring awareness to the issue, and to give him momentum in what he hoped to achieve. Maybe it worked, as apartheid ended in 1994, but it doesn't matter. There are other examples, but I'm sure as a history teacher, *ahem*, you should already know the history of this award. So why was Obama given this award? Well, as always, something happens and Americans cannot for once see the world through a lens that's not their own. For one, he's not George Bush, and has changed the way America is viewed in the world. America is now the most admired country on Earth, and that changed because of him and what he represents: hope. For two, for his efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from this Earth, something not pursued with even lip service that Ronnie Reagan gave it. For three, he's been the only American president to go to a Muslim country, give an amazing speech about peace in their lands, admit our involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian government, and just be real to them; he reached out his hand to a community who frankly doesn't want to know we exist. He did it anyway, and it was well received despite a few errors. If one wanted to be nit picky, it was a flawed speech. However, when you view it in its scope, it was a tremendously brave and well written speech with great intentions; and the audience would say the same. Last, it’s not about him. It’s about us, and about this hour in history, “the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.” Take a look at his speech; he recognizes that he alone doesn't "deserve it," but he also understands what the committee is saying. The prize is an honor to someone who is actively pursuing peace with nuclear weapons, with Israel and Palestine, with Iran, with Cuba, and most of all, he's shown that the US can lead again and it doesn't have to saber rattle every 5 seconds someone doesn't agree with our views. The prize is a challenge to him, and to America, to show that we can walk the walk just as well as talking the talk. They, too, are trying to organize the President.

Lol. Every scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming exists and is attributed to human factors (or they are non-committal, NONE have dissented). Not actually. There are many scientists who disagree, but scientific journals won't publish their papers. Global warming is a "popular belief", one that, when strayed from, isn't taken well. Um, not really. They haven't brought evidence supporting their claims. Stop denying the evidence all around you, address it, instead of throwing it off as some scheme to enslave the world. The scientific community has looked at the dissenting opinions, and they don't stand to scrutiny. And this decision wasn't made "right when he was inaugurated." The time to make nominations was at that time. Once again, I don't necessarily think he was the most worthy person to win. However, given their track record in the past, it's not surprising, frankly. These decisions have always been about the political possibility of peace, and almost never about actual accomplishments.

Lol. I mean, it's one thing to just deny that humans are the cause, it's one thing to say there's "no evidence for this," but it's like...completely laughable for someone to say that there's "no proof that it exists." It's laughable to say the former, but it's just so horrible that people can't read trend lines. I think a more sobering comparison would be Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, Woodrow Wilson, Lech Welesa, Bishop Desmond Tutu, etc. Obama received the prize (didn't win it; it is not won) because he changed the tone of international dialog, he restarted discussions on dealing with climate change, he successfully negotiated a stronger non-proliferation framework through the UN Security Council and then used that to open dialog with Russia, Iran, and North Korea on reduction of nuclear weapons. ~Alfred Nobel Oh, and I'm not necessarily saying he was more deserving than other people, nor that I believe he should have received it. I am saying it's not a surprise for the NPP to make a decision on the prospect of peace versus actual accomplishments.

My thoughts, channeled through conservative commentator, Andrew Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/all-over-the-world.html#more

So Mage decided to go drinking down town for his friend's 21st birthday. He started his adventure waiting for the bus: After lots of drinking, some pictures were taken: Later, he blacked out: The next morning, he tried peeing on his friend's DVD shelf, and instead peed on his pants. So when he went home, he walked home without pants:

Replace this with my old picture B.