Mordhau
 EliteTeamKiller
  • Likes received 694
  • Date joined 18 Jul '16
  • Last seen 20 Apr

Private Message

848 694

@Lincs said:
I'm in too deep man
I gotta see how it ENDS man
I gotta see what happens

inb4 it's just some lord of the rings fucking shit and jon has to go to the land of cold mount doom and throw longclaw in to kill the big bad evil ice king

Most of the criticism here is either from just a bunch edgelords trying to be cool or from people comparing to its earlier seasons. The former is irrelevant and the latter may be true, but compared to other shows on television it is still superior in most ways, especially considered as a whole.

So even if GoT is shittier now than it used to be, most television is still shittier than it, and GoT mops the floor with pretty much every superhero movie ever made except a couple Batman films and maybe one or two others. But those aren’t entrenched enough in pop culture for a long enough time to be cool enough to hate.

848 694

@Sir Zombie said:
I HATE archers

We hate you.

848 694

Clearly there is some sort siege warfare based on the trailer. I’m hoping it isn’t just a lame timer like that game which must not be named. Is it just TDM but with battlements and siege weapons?

If there was a form of team objective beyond merely just killing each other, if instead teams shared lives (determined based on server population), and when they are gone defense respawns on their next death with on life left, while offense does the same except at the final objective, the mode would be far more fulfilling.

So what is it? What is the siege mode in the trailers? Is it just TDM but with walls and siege weapons? Is there actually a team goal? What is the life or time counter like?

848 694

@ÐMontyleGueux said:
I read the response Steve Pigot wrote, which convinced me even more that Scott here is right.

What kind of passion leads you to literally leave your buggy game to rot and cram into it a microtransaction shop to sell stuff others made for free, on top of spamming free weekends to scrap as much money as possible. Hell they even hosted two map contests because they couldn't be arsed to add one single map post release by themselves. The only passion Steve showed is a passion for money, he's full of shit.

I'd like to hear from the other guy that got lied to about being voted off.

848 694

@Bodkin said:
Finalized the "Epic" mohican remix after all this time.

Had a few people say it sounds like Mordhau soundtrack.

https://soundcloud.com/austin-smith-248/mohicans-cinematic-test

Enjoy

@crack17

I like it. It's got good battle vibes to it. It's probably more suited for the quiet before the storm right before the battle begins. A good adrenaline pumping song.

Also could be used as background music for this video:

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@DerFurst said:
Even your REPLY to a criticism has the exact same problems that I explained in the criticism. Holy shit man, what are you doing.

I was explaining why this sort of thing trigger me.
.
.
.
Example: say you told me the world was flat, and that scientists are all brainwashed fools. I would point out that you can use this equation: F = L/(4pid^2) to find out how far away San Francisco must be from Tokyo for someone in Tokyo to not see the sun hovering over San Francisco when it's night time in Tokyo if the world was flat. I would then carry out the calculations (you actually have to use the equation twice). I would discover the distance would have to be more than 100 times greater than it is. I would then start to rage at their arrogance when they are clearly wrong. When they point out that it's just an equation, I would rage further, as the development of the equation can be traced to hundreds of years of careful physics. If one so desired, one could learn all of the physical and logical justification for it, yet when I use it to debunk them, they would merely say it is arbitrary, despite the fact that the logic behind it is very sound and available for all to see... and thus the RAGE INTENSIFIES...
.
.
.
Thus, you can see the nature of my illness.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

I guess it is kind of like racism caused by being harmed by a particular race. It's not fair, but it is what it is. I've seen too many arrogant twats who think they know more than hundreds of thousands of scientists who have put in the decades of learning and contributing the Humanity's knowledge. It triggers me into being an automatic asshole.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@DerFurst said:
It's going to take hopelessly long to reply to all of this at once, so here's some critique of your arguments, EliteTeamKiller. These are general themes.

1: Going outside of someone's knowledge base to list off unrelated facts that don't contribute to the discussion doesn't make you sound smarter or more credible, but like a complete asshole. It's also a tactic taken straight from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, a book aimed at teaching young Communist revolutionaries how to overthrow governments through dishonest tactics. Specifically you're using rule #3: "whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." This is a tactic meant to make the person you're arguing against feel scared and insecure, like they're treading into enemy territory, while bolstering your position, even if what you're saying is completely unrelated and just posturing.

2: You have this really annoying know it all persona, but I don't even know where any this comes from. Another nod to Alinsky: Rule #1: "power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." All this pseudo-expertise is really just meant to scare and stupefy people into thinking you've got a huge knowledge base and then concede just because of that. You try to make it seem like the world is so hopelessly complicated that only 180 IQ megaminds, which you imply to be yourself through constant posturing, can comprehend the simple motivations of people. I can see through this.

3: You insult people over and over again by telling them how dumb and unscientific they are (while of course stroking your own ego.) This is pretty funny, because that's an irrational action. Back to Alinsky, Rule #5 states: "ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There isn't a defense against ridicule because it's patently irrational. No scientifically minded person would resort to using ridicule, which leads me to believe you're not very scientifically minded at all.

.
.
.
I am rude and an asshole about this topic because people annoy the shit out of me because they arrogantly dismiss the work of thousands of people who spend year and years mastering a particular subject even though the dismissers don't even know jack shit about the topic they are dismissing.
.
.
.

Let me give an example:

I have the same reaction to people who claim the universe is 6000 years old. Why is this annoying to me? Because I have learned enough of special relativity, and did the Michealson-Morley experiment myself, to realize that the constancy of the speed of light renders the 6000 year old hypothesis retarded... because you can disprove it by getting a telescope and looking at the stars which are more than 6000 light years away.
.
.

Another:

The flat earth retards who claim the space station doesn't exist. I have SEEN that motherfucker in a telescope, and these people claim it doesn't exist? Furthermore, the calculation to see how large the distance between San Francisco and Tokyo would need to be for the sun to only be 30,000 miles away is basic physics, and it shows that the distance would need to be at least two orders of magnitude greater for the sun to not be visible from one of the cities to the other. Very easy to calculate. Yet these fucktards insist that the world is flat. This exasperates me and makes me want to internet punch them. I haven't even gotten into the thousands of years of work that has gone on before, about how these retards are essentially arguing that they know more about astronomy and physics than Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Einstein etc etc. Yes, Newton, Kepler, etc are all idiots who didn't know jack, or are secretly tools of Satan...
.
.
.
.
.

My "scientific expertise" is minimal. I have studied some physics (including upper division undergraduate stuff), got one thing published in Sky and Telescope (along with my professor and a few other students), and I have spent some time studying special relativity. I am not some expert. But I do KNOW a bunch of scientists (not all are professors; I know a nuclear physicist who works in medicine and a newbie chemical engineer). All of these people are extremely intelligent. None of them are getting paid by the government to lie to the world.

.
.
.

So why am I a dick? Most of the criticisms on this topic usually involve shit that is easily explained if the person in question would get off their ass and research. For example, the argument that there is a delay in CO2 production versus temperature. This is explained neatly by feedback loops. No one arguing that climate change is a hoax seems to know much about this topic. Why? We already KNOW that greenhouse gases trap heat. The chemistry and physics is easy enough to follow if you have the slightest education on the topic. Why is none of this known?
.
.
Is their ignorance what pisses me off? No. I, for example, am not entirely knowledgeable about how tensor analysis works (the barrier preventing me from understanding general relativity at the moment). Ignorance or lack of knowledge is not my problem.

My problem is the ARROGANCE of these cunts. Not only are these people NOT knowledgeable about the details of the science, not only do they refuse to attempt to learn, they are ARROGANT about their conclusions... despite lacking the knowledge and expertise (which would be available to them if they got off their ass and worked).

That is why I am a dick on this topic.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Monsteri said:

SCIENCE

... is why you are able to read annoying shit posted by people like me. FU science.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Monkeytoes said:
TeamKiller, I aspire to become a scientist, but my question does not relate to science: Where do you stand politically?

Mostly centrist.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@CaptainGaymer said:

And thus began the Slave Trade.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

BTW if you can name a scientist who got his/her degree from the University of Youtube I promise to watch your video. I might watch it next weekend anyway. Too busy this weekend. But if I do it's going to be with a pen and paper and a browser open so can test the veracity of the claims made (unlike what the target audience will do).

Prediction: the video will conveniently leave out climate change feedback loops:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GM029p0130/summary

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3800.1

Is it because such details are too intellectually intense for its couch potato target audience? Is it because it is inconvenient for the argument being made? Time will tell. However, I suspect none of this will be in this "intellectually honest" video.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:
https://youtu.be/3DpxP7R4aLw

(a) I'm not watching an hour and 15 minute video. Give the cliffnotes.

(b) Any retarded ass conspiracy theory that claims climate science is a hoax by necessity must include all the world's scientists being in on the hoax, which is completely fucking retarded. AT BEST, the only scientists who would be in on it are the ones working for government organizations or big energy companies. Why? Because as I already pointed out to your esteemed colleague, public science funding does not work the way you people assume. It works like this: government sets aside 8 billion in funding for the year; group of scientists put together a proposal for research, asking for funding; government OUTSOURCES the review of their proposal to OTHER SCIENTISTS (note... IT IS NOT FUCKING THE GOVERNMENT WHO DECIDES WHO GETS THE MONEY), these OTHER SCIENTISTS then choose which projects get funding and which do not.

So... basically, you are already dealing with the fact that the budget is SET EACH YEAR, and that it isn't even the government deciding who gets the funds.

(c) Non-government/big business scientists aren't paid more for doing research A instead of research B. They are usually on a salary with their educational institution.

(d) If research scientists were in it for money they wouldn't be scientists. They'd be engineers.

So please, list the cliff notes. And remember, only retarded people or old people get their information from online videos. Smart people who aren't senile research scholarly articles. They read and study. They don't sit back like a fucking vegetable watching videos whose arguments they can't actually vet properly because they are watching a fucking video.

So many strawman arguments.

A- Watch the video, its 1:15. You probably watch porn for longer than that daily
B- Why does it have to be a conspiracy? A hell of a lot of scientists come out saying they don't believe man made global warming.

Correction: a whole lot of scientists have said that human's contribution is not as vital as others claim.

C- uh, are you retarded? Do you think that climate scientists employed by the UN to specifically research man made climate change are suddenly going to start researching psychopathic behaviour in insect colonies?

You will note that not all of the 600 plus scientists who worked in the IPCC were government employees Based on a control F of the authors, 206 of them were university or college employees. And naturally, the tens of thousands of other scientists who do not work for governments who read the papers. I mean, you have to pay them off too, to keep them silent...

The research in, for example, the IPCC is all peer reviewed. Meaning it isn't just government employees who have their hand in it. Furthermore, the actual scientific conclusion in that report (4th assessment) is that there is about a 90% chance that most of the observed warming is caused by human activity. Would a government conspiracy hell bent on lying to the public state that they are only 90% sure that humans are the main culprit?

There is what SCIENCE says, what scientists say, and there is what politicians say scientists say. Stop confusing the these things.

The most recent large scale study from SCIENCE says, due to all the available evidence, it's about 90% certain that greenhouse gases are behind most of what we see in warming.

SCIENTISTS, who are by nature conservative, say that it's a certainty (primarily, I imagine, because they envision the worst case scenarios). Or they say "overwhelming consensus." But the "overwhelming consensus" is that there is a 90% chance that human released green house gases is the most important factor. That means even the "overwhelming consensus" leaves a 10% possibility for doubt. Some government conspiracy, lol.

POLITICIANS say whatever it is they think will get them reelected.

D- wow holy shit you mean they would be a differently defined word due to specifics? Holy fuck you are so smart can you please penetrate my arsehole

If you don't know the difference between engineers and research scientists, or the difference in their salaries (aerospace engineer: 107k, nuclear engineer: ~102k; chemical engineer: ~97k, electrical engineer: 95k, biomedical engineer: !85k; research scientist: ~77k per year), you aren't ready to discuss science. The money is in engineering. Note: this is ignoring the fact that most people who set out to become research scientists end up as educators, making even less. Anyone who is anyone who has sought after a degree in science is well aware that the money is in engineering.

E- Oh yes my fellow intellectual of the modern era, true research scientists and philosophers retrieve all their information from only the purest secondary evidence sources, and if not, from their own research. Anything less than this makes me scoff in disgust.

Name some scientists who get their degrees from The University of Youtube.

Really man? You are saying you can read through official documentation but not watch a 1:15 documentary?

You are trying too hard to sound smart, this is a videogame forum and you are really coming across as a pseudointellectual neckbeard. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you posted your IQ in your next post.

Official documentation? I'm talking about peer reviewed publications. And yes; I read a hell of a lot faster than some lying asshole can talk, and when I read, I can compare claims from different sources, while if I watch a video I'm stuck listening to one asshole (unless I want to pause it every two minutes).

If you do want a science dick measuring contest I'm more than willing to flip my science dick out. Shall I derive E=mc^2 for you from scratch? Shall I demonstrate line by line why we know that energy conservation MUST be true if the laws of physics are constant over time? Shall I show you how we know the approximate size of a hydrogen atom?

I mean, whatever my weak ass level of science education is (which is high enough to know more physics than most people; one guy here I know is further along than me, forgot his name), at least I don't get my information from Youtube videos, lmao. So yeah. At least I know enough science to realize that fucking YOUTUBE is less vetted than peer reviewed publications.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

I did, however, find a rebuttal to the video:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Of course, I'm not likely going to waist an hour of my life watching it.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@r/iamverysmart said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@DerFurst said:
I've read some fairly conflicting evidence about global warming, such as the polar ice caps not receding but growing larger... The whole issue seems like a huge distraction and a farce involving a great deal of fraudulent science (primarily on the pro-MMGW side)

I can accept the idea that the sun itself is going through a hotter period. That will naturally happen and there's nothing we can do about it.

However, what's being done to stop "global warming" is utterly abhorrent, and is in actuality just an excuse to control people even more by monitoring and micromanaging all their actions. There's actually been talks in the past about "smart toilets" that monitor how many times and how much you flush to know how much you should be taxed, or that driving a car will be utterly impossible when a taxation on carbon emitting cars is implemented. There's also the United Nations gag of "it's the whole world's problem, we have to join together as one and fix the absolutely true problem guys. Anyone who doesn't obey our climate fighting international law will be sanctioned or destroyed."

If global warming REALLY were trying to be fixed, then environmentally damaging corporations would be first on the chopping block, not regular citizens. As it stands right now, global warming talks ONLY talk about how citizens can be strangled by government, which is very telling.

Did you know that the US government itself has OPENLY stated that they are spraying heavy metals and chemicals into the sky out the back of airplanes to block the sun as a means to "stop" global warming? Those are the "chemtrails" that conspiracy people are always talking about.

Fraudulent science? Who do you think has more interest in compromising data? University scientists who are on salary, or billion dollar oil companies?

Anyway, at least in the United States, outside of NASA and other government organizations, it is NOT the government who decides which research project gets funding. The NSF gets a fixed budget every year, and they OUTSOURCE the review regarding whether a group should get their research funded to other scientists in the field of those requesting funding- i.e. outside experts.

There is no hard evidence for Global warming, just like biology. There are signs of it and the science makes sense but there is no 100% evidence for either of them. You can always deny a god doesn't exist for instance, and point out every single logical flaw in creationism, but you can never DISPROVE IT. Same applies here

Hi there Survii!

Question: "Just like biology?" Let me guess that means... there is no concrete evidence for evolution? (please say there isn't! I'd love to have this debate here and bring some Biblical literalist creationists to a frothing rage)

As for "global warming," would temperature history not count for proof? The question here is what are the most important factors influencing climate change, not that it's happening, lol. Best available evidence suggests gases in the atmosphere* have anywhere from a small impact to a good sized impact (relatively speaking), but regardless of the weighted value of causes, no one is seriously denying the climate has always changed, is currently changing, and will continue to change.

*Note: some retards inexplicably believe that methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide released in the air thousands of years ago is somehow different than the same gases released today simply because of the source of their release, despite having identical chemical properties.

Another quick note: proofs are for math, not science. Theories aren't proven; they are accurate or inaccurate. You don't do any proofs in science.

Holy shit I wrote biology, yes I meant natural selection. I believe it and actually use it in most my arguments about human nature (all complex behaviour comes down to natural selection imo) but I know there is no way you can prove it. There is a shit tonne of evidence but no guarantee it is true, just like how you can have all the evidence against a God existing but then you die and find out you were wrong. Same goes for climate change, the evidence is basically "de temperature has gon up and so has the amount of smoke we make so dat meens it be true" and even then there are inaccuracies. The climate changes all the time naturally by itself. There is no concrete evidence in support of global warming.

And the climate changing naturally by itself just so happens to be accompanied by increases in green house gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Tell me, do those gases magically behave differently when they are put there by humans?

Note: get two coke bottles, some vinegar, baking soda, water, two thermometers, and a lamp. Put the baking soda in one. Pour water in one. Pour the vinegar into the one with baking soda (creating carbon dioxide). Put thermometers in bottles and seal them (either with tape or rig a hole in the tops, but either way, minimize gas escape). Wait. Look at thermometer. Stand in utter disbelief as the bottle with carbon dioxide has a higher temperature. Slap yourself in the face for being so retarded as to doubt grade school science in the first place.

The ice age ended at the same time that Dave the caveman started fucking his wife?!
PEOPLE CALLED DAVE FUCKING THEIR WIVES CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Wait, no, thats wrong.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL PROOF!

pirates.png

Just to humor you, it's easier to survive in a more temperate climate.

And before you say "climate change caused more greenhouse gases," go get two coke bottles, some baking soda, vinegar, water, two thermometers and a lamp, do the experiment I posted above, and comeback and tell me basic chemistry is wrong after your baking soda + vinegar bottle has a higher temperature than your water bottle.

conspiracy

blackpeoplecantbescientists

Note: do this yourself don't be a retard.

lol you left yourself as "r/iamverysmart" in the quote.

Ok smartass, how does a bottle experiment prove anything?

Let me ask you this, what is the biggest factor contributing to global warming.
CO2

What is the biggest cause of CO2. Well, according to multiple sources- cows. They produce a lot of CO2, and supposedly are more harmful than cars to the ozone layer.

Dinosaurs were around for a much longer period of time, were overall much bigger than cows and much more numerous. Surely they would've turned our ozone to rubble due to the insane amount of high density dinofarts? Surely their amount of flatulence is absolutely colossal compared to cows nowadays? And also persisted for much longer.

First of all, CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas. It's just the most important one related to humans.

Second, the global temperature was a lot higher then, wasn't it?

Third, as it pertains to the PLANET, climate change is irrelevant. The planet is not alive. But as it applies to LIFE, the temperature itself is not the problem. The RATE OF CHANGE of the temperature with respect to time is the critical issue, because living organisms cannot immediately make biological changes to compensate (the process of natural selection requires at least enough time for several generations to pass without the species being pressured so much that it dies out). As long as the climate is relatively stable, it can be hot or cold and species will be fine, so long as the changes aren't too drastic in too short of time.

You will note, however, that historical (relatively) fast changes in the climate have been accompanied by extinctions. For example, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, where there was a rapid increase in global temperature, caused by greenhouse gases (specifically, huge spikes in methane and carbon dioxide).

Please note: the reason scientists believe green house gases are important in climate change is two-fold: (1) We know their chemical properties (one of which is shown in the experiment I suggested). (2) we know the goddamned planet's history, and these gases, which have the KNOWN chemical property of trapping heat, just so happened to skyrocket just about every time there was a large rise in global temperature).

So you act like people are just making this shit up to spite oil companies. It's based on the history of the planet (I get so tickled when scientifically illiterates argue "WELL PEOPLE WEREN'T THERE IN THE PAST, DERPITY DERP, HOW DID CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPEN THEN?" when the exact same chemicals scientists talk about now played large roles in past climate change... as if the same chemicals have magically different properties when they are released naturally than when humans manufacture them.... /facepalm )

The computer models scientists use to model climate change are not made up on the spot. They are, again, based on the planet's history, history which just so happens to include green house gases (which we know trap heat) rising dramatically when temperature does.

watch the documentary I posted, it's certainly interesting.

With all due respect, only stupid, gullible, lazy or old people get their scientific information from documentaries, as I discussed in my previous post (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and choosing to believe you are lazy). It is hard to watch a video skeptically and remain able to vet and analyze each point... because you are watching a fucking video. Smart people READ- because you can cross reference or examine every statement made without risk of harshing your mellow while you sit in a vegetative state watching a video. I'm serious. Man, videos are NOT a good way to find out the truth about something. All they are good for is finding someone's biased conclusion without any risk whatsoever of them undermining their own arguments. While if you research instead, you can compare and contrast different claims and pieces of evidence, different studies, etc, and you can do it far more quickly.

Case in point: I could spend an hour and fifteen minutes watching this, then another hour and fifteen minutes watching the counter argument video, all the while retaining only 2% of what I see, or I could instead read scholarly articles, follow links people post to studies supporting or contradicting certain claims, and each point can be examined with a single google search. So yeah, videos are too inefficient for my snobby ass.

In other words, I'm not wasting my time watching a video. There is WAY too much useless fluff in these things designed to keep viewers interested, way too much deliberate manipulation of data or quotes or expert opinions, and way to much bullshit in general.

But if you would be kind enough to post the main points I'd be happy to examine them. Who knows, maybe some nice soul has done that in the comment section.

Granted, that is a preference grounded in practicality. And there ARE actually useful long ass Youtube videos. For example, this one:

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@r/iamverysmart said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@DerFurst said:
I've read some fairly conflicting evidence about global warming, such as the polar ice caps not receding but growing larger... The whole issue seems like a huge distraction and a farce involving a great deal of fraudulent science (primarily on the pro-MMGW side)

I can accept the idea that the sun itself is going through a hotter period. That will naturally happen and there's nothing we can do about it.

However, what's being done to stop "global warming" is utterly abhorrent, and is in actuality just an excuse to control people even more by monitoring and micromanaging all their actions. There's actually been talks in the past about "smart toilets" that monitor how many times and how much you flush to know how much you should be taxed, or that driving a car will be utterly impossible when a taxation on carbon emitting cars is implemented. There's also the United Nations gag of "it's the whole world's problem, we have to join together as one and fix the absolutely true problem guys. Anyone who doesn't obey our climate fighting international law will be sanctioned or destroyed."

If global warming REALLY were trying to be fixed, then environmentally damaging corporations would be first on the chopping block, not regular citizens. As it stands right now, global warming talks ONLY talk about how citizens can be strangled by government, which is very telling.

Did you know that the US government itself has OPENLY stated that they are spraying heavy metals and chemicals into the sky out the back of airplanes to block the sun as a means to "stop" global warming? Those are the "chemtrails" that conspiracy people are always talking about.

Fraudulent science? Who do you think has more interest in compromising data? University scientists who are on salary, or billion dollar oil companies?

Anyway, at least in the United States, outside of NASA and other government organizations, it is NOT the government who decides which research project gets funding. The NSF gets a fixed budget every year, and they OUTSOURCE the review regarding whether a group should get their research funded to other scientists in the field of those requesting funding- i.e. outside experts.

There is no hard evidence for Global warming, just like biology. There are signs of it and the science makes sense but there is no 100% evidence for either of them. You can always deny a god doesn't exist for instance, and point out every single logical flaw in creationism, but you can never DISPROVE IT. Same applies here

Hi there Survii!

Question: "Just like biology?" Let me guess that means... there is no concrete evidence for evolution? (please say there isn't! I'd love to have this debate here and bring some Biblical literalist creationists to a frothing rage)

As for "global warming," would temperature history not count for proof? The question here is what are the most important factors influencing climate change, not that it's happening, lol. Best available evidence suggests gases in the atmosphere* have anywhere from a small impact to a good sized impact (relatively speaking), but regardless of the weighted value of causes, no one is seriously denying the climate has always changed, is currently changing, and will continue to change.

*Note: some retards inexplicably believe that methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide released in the air thousands of years ago is somehow different than the same gases released today simply because of the source of their release, despite having identical chemical properties.

Another quick note: proofs are for math, not science. Theories aren't proven; they are accurate or inaccurate. You don't do any proofs in science.

Holy shit I wrote biology, yes I meant natural selection. I believe it and actually use it in most my arguments about human nature (all complex behaviour comes down to natural selection imo) but I know there is no way you can prove it. There is a shit tonne of evidence but no guarantee it is true, just like how you can have all the evidence against a God existing but then you die and find out you were wrong. Same goes for climate change, the evidence is basically "de temperature has gon up and so has the amount of smoke we make so dat meens it be true" and even then there are inaccuracies. The climate changes all the time naturally by itself. There is no concrete evidence in support of global warming.

And the climate changing naturally by itself just so happens to be accompanied by increases in green house gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Tell me, do those gases magically behave differently when they are put there by humans?

Note: get two coke bottles, some vinegar, baking soda, water, two thermometers, and a lamp. Put the baking soda in one. Pour water in one. Pour the vinegar into the one with baking soda (creating carbon dioxide). Put thermometers in bottles and seal them (either with tape or rig a hole in the tops, but either way, minimize gas escape). Wait. Look at thermometer. Stand in utter disbelief as the bottle with carbon dioxide has a higher temperature. Slap yourself in the face for being so retarded as to doubt grade school science in the first place.

The ice age ended at the same time that Dave the caveman started fucking his wife?!
PEOPLE CALLED DAVE FUCKING THEIR WIVES CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Wait, no, thats wrong.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL PROOF!

pirates.png

Just to humor you, it's easier to survive in a more temperate climate.

And before you say "climate change caused more greenhouse gases," go get two coke bottles, some baking soda, vinegar, water, two thermometers and a lamp, do the experiment I posted above, and comeback and tell me basic chemistry is wrong after your baking soda + vinegar bottle has a higher temperature than your water bottle.

conspiracy

blackpeoplecantbescientists

Note: do this yourself don't be a retard.

lol you left yourself as "r/iamverysmart" in the quote.

Ok smartass, how does a bottle experiment prove anything?

Let me ask you this, what is the biggest factor contributing to global warming.
CO2

What is the biggest cause of CO2. Well, according to multiple sources- cows. They produce a lot of CO2, and supposedly are more harmful than cars to the ozone layer.

Dinosaurs were around for a much longer period of time, were overall much bigger than cows and much more numerous. Surely they would've turned our ozone to rubble due to the insane amount of high density dinofarts? Surely their amount of flatulence is absolutely colossal compared to cows nowadays? And also persisted for much longer.

First of all, CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas. It's just the most important one related to humans.

Second, the global temperature was a lot higher then, wasn't it?

Third, as it pertains to the PLANET, climate change is irrelevant. The planet is not alive. But as it applies to LIFE, the temperature itself is not the problem. The RATE OF CHANGE of the temperature with respect to time is the critical issue, because living organisms cannot immediately make biological changes to compensate (the process of natural selection requires at least enough time for several generations to pass without the species being pressured so much that it dies out). As long as the climate is relatively stable, it can be hot or cold and species will be fine, so long as the changes aren't too drastic in too short of time.

You will note, however, that historical (relatively) fast changes in the climate have been accompanied by extinctions. For example, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, where there was a rapid increase in global temperature, caused by greenhouse gases (specifically, huge spikes in methane and carbon dioxide).

Please note: the reason scientists believe green house gases are important in climate change is two-fold: (1) We know their chemical properties (one of which is shown in the experiment I suggested). (2) we know the goddamned planet's history, and these gases, which have the KNOWN chemical property of trapping heat, just so happened to skyrocket just about every time there was a large rise in global temperature).

So you act like people are just making this shit up to spite oil companies. It's based on the history of the planet (I get so tickled when scientifically illiterates argue "WELL PEOPLE WEREN'T THERE IN THE PAST, DERPITY DERP, HOW DID CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPEN THEN?" when the exact same chemicals scientists talk about now played large roles in past climate change... as if the same chemicals have magically different properties when they are released naturally than when humans manufacture them.... /facepalm )

The computer models scientists use to model climate change are not made up on the spot. They are, again, based on the planet's history, history which just so happens to include green house gases (which we know trap heat) rising dramatically when temperature does.

watch the documentary I posted, it's certainly interesting.

With all due respect, only stupid, gullible, lazy or old people get their scientific information from documentaries, as I discussed in my previous post (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and choosing to believe you are lazy). It is hard to watch a video skeptically and remain able to vet and analyze each point... because you are watching a fucking video. Smart people READ- because you can cross reference or examine every statement made without risk of harshing your mellow while you sit in a vegetative state watching a video. I'm serious. Man, videos are NOT a good way to find out the truth about something. All they are good for is finding someone's biased conclusion without any risk whatsoever of them undermining their own arguments. While if you research instead, you can compare and contrast different claims and pieces of evidence, different studies, etc, and you can do it far more quickly.

Case in point: I could spend an hour and fifteen minutes watching this, then another hour and fifteen minutes watching the counter argument video, all the while retaining only 2% of what I see, or I could instead read scholarly articles, follow links people post to studies supporting or contradicting certain claims, and each point can be examined with a single google search. So yeah, videos are too inefficient for my snobby ass.

In other words, I'm not wasting my time watching a video. There is WAY too much useless fluff in these things designed to keep viewers interested, way too much deliberate manipulation of data or quotes or expert opinions, and way to much bullshit in general.

But if you would be kind enough to post the main points I'd be happy to examine them. Who knows, maybe some nice soul has done that in the comment section.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Survii said:
https://youtu.be/3DpxP7R4aLw

(a) I'm not watching an hour and 15 minute video. Give the cliffnotes.

(b) Any retarded ass conspiracy theory that claims climate science is a hoax by necessity must include all the world's scientists being in on the hoax, which is completely fucking retarded. AT BEST, the only scientists who would be in on it are the ones working for government organizations or big energy companies. Why? Because as I already pointed out to your esteemed colleague, public science funding does not work the way you people assume. It works like this: government sets aside 8 billion in funding for the year; group of scientists put together a proposal for research, asking for funding; government OUTSOURCES the review of their proposal to OTHER SCIENTISTS (note... IT IS NOT FUCKING THE GOVERNMENT WHO DECIDES WHO GETS THE MONEY), these OTHER SCIENTISTS then choose which projects get funding and which do not.

So... basically, you are already dealing with the fact that the budget is SET EACH YEAR, and that it isn't even the government deciding who gets the funds.

(c) Non-government/big business scientists aren't paid more for doing research A instead of research B. They are usually on a salary with their educational institution.

(d) If research scientists were in it for money they wouldn't be scientists. They'd be engineers.

So please, list the cliff notes. And remember, only retarded people or old people get their information from online videos. Smart people who aren't senile research scholarly articles. They read and study. They don't sit back like a fucking vegetable watching videos whose arguments they can't actually vet properly because they are watching a fucking video.

848 694
  • 2
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@r/iamverysmart said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@DerFurst said:
I've read some fairly conflicting evidence about global warming, such as the polar ice caps not receding but growing larger... The whole issue seems like a huge distraction and a farce involving a great deal of fraudulent science (primarily on the pro-MMGW side)

I can accept the idea that the sun itself is going through a hotter period. That will naturally happen and there's nothing we can do about it.

However, what's being done to stop "global warming" is utterly abhorrent, and is in actuality just an excuse to control people even more by monitoring and micromanaging all their actions. There's actually been talks in the past about "smart toilets" that monitor how many times and how much you flush to know how much you should be taxed, or that driving a car will be utterly impossible when a taxation on carbon emitting cars is implemented. There's also the United Nations gag of "it's the whole world's problem, we have to join together as one and fix the absolutely true problem guys. Anyone who doesn't obey our climate fighting international law will be sanctioned or destroyed."

If global warming REALLY were trying to be fixed, then environmentally damaging corporations would be first on the chopping block, not regular citizens. As it stands right now, global warming talks ONLY talk about how citizens can be strangled by government, which is very telling.

Did you know that the US government itself has OPENLY stated that they are spraying heavy metals and chemicals into the sky out the back of airplanes to block the sun as a means to "stop" global warming? Those are the "chemtrails" that conspiracy people are always talking about.

Fraudulent science? Who do you think has more interest in compromising data? University scientists who are on salary, or billion dollar oil companies?

Anyway, at least in the United States, outside of NASA and other government organizations, it is NOT the government who decides which research project gets funding. The NSF gets a fixed budget every year, and they OUTSOURCE the review regarding whether a group should get their research funded to other scientists in the field of those requesting funding- i.e. outside experts.

There is no hard evidence for Global warming, just like biology. There are signs of it and the science makes sense but there is no 100% evidence for either of them. You can always deny a god doesn't exist for instance, and point out every single logical flaw in creationism, but you can never DISPROVE IT. Same applies here

Hi there Survii!

Question: "Just like biology?" Let me guess that means... there is no concrete evidence for evolution? (please say there isn't! I'd love to have this debate here and bring some Biblical literalist creationists to a frothing rage)

As for "global warming," would temperature history not count for proof? The question here is what are the most important factors influencing climate change, not that it's happening, lol. Best available evidence suggests gases in the atmosphere* have anywhere from a small impact to a good sized impact (relatively speaking), but regardless of the weighted value of causes, no one is seriously denying the climate has always changed, is currently changing, and will continue to change.

*Note: some retards inexplicably believe that methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide released in the air thousands of years ago is somehow different than the same gases released today simply because of the source of their release, despite having identical chemical properties.

Another quick note: proofs are for math, not science. Theories aren't proven; they are accurate or inaccurate. You don't do any proofs in science.

Holy shit I wrote biology, yes I meant natural selection. I believe it and actually use it in most my arguments about human nature (all complex behaviour comes down to natural selection imo) but I know there is no way you can prove it. There is a shit tonne of evidence but no guarantee it is true, just like how you can have all the evidence against a God existing but then you die and find out you were wrong. Same goes for climate change, the evidence is basically "de temperature has gon up and so has the amount of smoke we make so dat meens it be true" and even then there are inaccuracies. The climate changes all the time naturally by itself. There is no concrete evidence in support of global warming.

And the climate changing naturally by itself just so happens to be accompanied by increases in green house gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Tell me, do those gases magically behave differently when they are put there by humans?

Note: get two coke bottles, some vinegar, baking soda, water, two thermometers, and a lamp. Put the baking soda in one. Pour water in one. Pour the vinegar into the one with baking soda (creating carbon dioxide). Put thermometers in bottles and seal them (either with tape or rig a hole in the tops, but either way, minimize gas escape). Wait. Look at thermometer. Stand in utter disbelief as the bottle with carbon dioxide has a higher temperature. Slap yourself in the face for being so retarded as to doubt grade school science in the first place.

The ice age ended at the same time that Dave the caveman started fucking his wife?!
PEOPLE CALLED DAVE FUCKING THEIR WIVES CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Wait, no, thats wrong.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL PROOF!

pirates.png

Just to humor you, it's easier to survive in a more temperate climate.

And before you say "climate change caused more greenhouse gases," go get two coke bottles, some baking soda, vinegar, water, two thermometers and a lamp, do the experiment I posted above, and comeback and tell me basic chemistry is wrong after your baking soda + vinegar bottle has a higher temperature than your water bottle.

conspiracy

blackpeoplecantbescientists

Note: do this yourself don't be a retard.

lol you left yourself as "r/iamverysmart" in the quote.

Ok smartass, how does a bottle experiment prove anything?

Let me ask you this, what is the biggest factor contributing to global warming.
CO2

What is the biggest cause of CO2. Well, according to multiple sources- cows. They produce a lot of CO2, and supposedly are more harmful than cars to the ozone layer.

Dinosaurs were around for a much longer period of time, were overall much bigger than cows and much more numerous. Surely they would've turned our ozone to rubble due to the insane amount of high density dinofarts? Surely their amount of flatulence is absolutely colossal compared to cows nowadays? And also persisted for much longer.

First of all, CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas. It's just the most important one related to humans.

Second, the global temperature was a lot higher then, wasn't it?

Third, as it pertains to the PLANET, climate change is irrelevant. The planet is not alive. But as it applies to LIFE, the temperature itself is not the problem. The RATE OF CHANGE of the temperature with respect to time is the critical issue, because living organisms cannot immediately make biological changes to compensate (the process of natural selection requires at least enough time for several generations to pass without the species being pressured so much that it dies out). As long as the climate is relatively stable, it can be hot or cold and species will be fine, so long as the changes aren't too drastic in too short of time.

You will note, however, that historical (relatively) fast changes in the climate have been accompanied by extinctions. For example, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, where there was a rapid increase in global temperature, caused by greenhouse gases (specifically, huge spikes in methane and carbon dioxide).

Please note: the reason scientists believe green house gases are important in climate change is two-fold: (1) We know their chemical properties (one of which is shown in the experiment I suggested). (2) we know the goddamned planet's history, and these gases, which have the KNOWN chemical property of trapping heat, just so happened to skyrocket just about every time there was a large rise in global temperature).

So you act like people are just making this shit up to spite oil companies. It's based on the history of the planet (I get so tickled when scientifically illiterates argue "WELL PEOPLE WEREN'T THERE IN THE PAST, DERPITY DERP, HOW DID CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPEN THEN?" when the exact same chemicals scientists talk about now played large roles in past climate change... as if the same chemicals have magically different properties when they are released naturally than when humans manufacture them.... /facepalm )

The computer models scientists use to model climate change are not made up on the spot. They are, again, based on the planet's history, history which just so happens to include green house gases (which we know trap heat) rising dramatically when temperature does.

848 694
  • 1
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@Survii said:

@r/iamverysmart said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@Survii said:

@EliteTeamKiller said:

@DerFurst said:
I've read some fairly conflicting evidence about global warming, such as the polar ice caps not receding but growing larger... The whole issue seems like a huge distraction and a farce involving a great deal of fraudulent science (primarily on the pro-MMGW side)

I can accept the idea that the sun itself is going through a hotter period. That will naturally happen and there's nothing we can do about it.

However, what's being done to stop "global warming" is utterly abhorrent, and is in actuality just an excuse to control people even more by monitoring and micromanaging all their actions. There's actually been talks in the past about "smart toilets" that monitor how many times and how much you flush to know how much you should be taxed, or that driving a car will be utterly impossible when a taxation on carbon emitting cars is implemented. There's also the United Nations gag of "it's the whole world's problem, we have to join together as one and fix the absolutely true problem guys. Anyone who doesn't obey our climate fighting international law will be sanctioned or destroyed."

If global warming REALLY were trying to be fixed, then environmentally damaging corporations would be first on the chopping block, not regular citizens. As it stands right now, global warming talks ONLY talk about how citizens can be strangled by government, which is very telling.

Did you know that the US government itself has OPENLY stated that they are spraying heavy metals and chemicals into the sky out the back of airplanes to block the sun as a means to "stop" global warming? Those are the "chemtrails" that conspiracy people are always talking about.

Fraudulent science? Who do you think has more interest in compromising data? University scientists who are on salary, or billion dollar oil companies?

Anyway, at least in the United States, outside of NASA and other government organizations, it is NOT the government who decides which research project gets funding. The NSF gets a fixed budget every year, and they OUTSOURCE the review regarding whether a group should get their research funded to other scientists in the field of those requesting funding- i.e. outside experts.

There is no hard evidence for Global warming, just like biology. There are signs of it and the science makes sense but there is no 100% evidence for either of them. You can always deny a god doesn't exist for instance, and point out every single logical flaw in creationism, but you can never DISPROVE IT. Same applies here

Hi there Survii!

Question: "Just like biology?" Let me guess that means... there is no concrete evidence for evolution? (please say there isn't! I'd love to have this debate here and bring some Biblical literalist creationists to a frothing rage)

As for "global warming," would temperature history not count for proof? The question here is what are the most important factors influencing climate change, not that it's happening, lol. Best available evidence suggests gases in the atmosphere* have anywhere from a small impact to a good sized impact (relatively speaking), but regardless of the weighted value of causes, no one is seriously denying the climate has always changed, is currently changing, and will continue to change.

*Note: some retards inexplicably believe that methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide released in the air thousands of years ago is somehow different than the same gases released today simply because of the source of their release, despite having identical chemical properties.

Another quick note: proofs are for math, not science. Theories aren't proven; they are accurate or inaccurate. You don't do any proofs in science.

Holy shit I wrote biology, yes I meant natural selection. I believe it and actually use it in most my arguments about human nature (all complex behaviour comes down to natural selection imo) but I know there is no way you can prove it. There is a shit tonne of evidence but no guarantee it is true, just like how you can have all the evidence against a God existing but then you die and find out you were wrong. Same goes for climate change, the evidence is basically "de temperature has gon up and so has the amount of smoke we make so dat meens it be true" and even then there are inaccuracies. The climate changes all the time naturally by itself. There is no concrete evidence in support of global warming.

And the climate changing naturally by itself just so happens to be accompanied by increases in green house gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Tell me, do those gases magically behave differently when they are put there by humans?

Note: get two coke bottles, some vinegar, baking soda, water, two thermometers, and a lamp. Put the baking soda in one. Pour water in one. Pour the vinegar into the one with baking soda (creating carbon dioxide). Put thermometers in bottles and seal them (either with tape or rig a hole in the tops, but either way, minimize gas escape). Wait. Look at thermometer. Stand in utter disbelief as the bottle with carbon dioxide has a higher temperature. Slap yourself in the face for being so retarded as to doubt grade school science in the first place.

The ice age ended at the same time that Dave the caveman started fucking his wife?!
PEOPLE CALLED DAVE FUCKING THEIR WIVES CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Wait, no, thats wrong.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL PROOF!

pirates.png

Just to humor you, it's easier to survive in a more temperate climate.

And before you say "climate change caused more greenhouse gases," go get two coke bottles, some baking soda, vinegar, water, two thermometers and a lamp, do the experiment I posted above, and comeback and tell me basic chemistry is wrong after your baking soda + vinegar bottle has a higher temperature than your water bottle.

Note: do this yourself don't be a retard.

848 694
  • 28 Oct '17
 EliteTeamKiller

@DerFurst said:
What seems to underpin most of your ideas is the faith that "science" and the "scientific community" are some golden city on top of the hill untouched by corruption, bringing truth and wisdom to the lowly masses who neither can understand nor appreciate their work. Your unshakeable faith in scientists is akin to the belief of a priestly caste. You might as well be a follower of the Church of Scientism. I can show you examples of corruption and you'll just shrug it off as "a few isolated cases." I can explain how a systemic problem works, and you'll deny it by repeating the official story. I don't know where to go with you, EliteTeamkiller

Tell me, are you a scientist? Do you know any? You OBVIOUSLY didn't know how science funding works, so...

There are always a few who are corruptible, but the vast majority are in it for the prestige and the love of the topic they have devoted their lives too. The notion that the entire scientific community is on on a vast conspiracy isn't just ludicrous, it's completely fucking retarded.

Your assumption that "everyone is in on the conspiracy" is just another example of your disingenuous nature. I don't argue with you often because you accuse me of things I don't say or imply every time we do. I don't know if you do it on purpose or if you're really just not aware of it, but it happens. Let me explain how I really see things:

Do you know the negative effects of compartmentalized hierarchies and the "need to know basis" of information? In a compartmentalized hierarchy, information is doled out in decreasing levels of specificity, complexity, (and truth) as the compartmentalized pyramid structure goes downwards from the capstone. This structure is the most effective system devised to keep secrets of a project hidden from the people working on it. Only the few at the top know everything, while the people below them will be told one story, while those below them will be told another story, until it reaches the ground floor which has the most broad, nonspecific, and least true version of the story necessary to keep them satisfied with an explanation. In this way, you can fool an untold number of people to follow a certain narrative that you have created, and work towards your benefit, without most of them ever knowing they're doing something bad for themselves. The ones who ask too much for their position are either silenced through ridicule or their security is threatened. The people who rise on this pyramid structure are the ones who play to the popular narrative they're given without stepping out of line, and prove themselves capable of maintaining this narrative, whether it be true or false.

THERE IS NO FUCKING NEED TO KNOW BASIS IN SCIENCE. All one has to do to see is get off one's lazy ass, learn some advanced partial differential equations, look at the goddamned data and see if it matches the theory.

I did this myself to learn special relativity, because I was wondering how the fuck simultaneity could not be universal. I LEARNT THE GODDAMNE MATH, bought the equipment, replicated the Michelson-Morley experiment, then derived the logical conclusion myself (which just so happened to miraculously match the "lies" we were fed by the physics community in order for the government to control us). BTW, can do that right here in this thread if you want.

No one is concealing shit in science. It is all published and there for one to consume, if that person in question isn't so fucking lazy to learn enough to follow it.

I've just given you knowledge of how mass indoctrination works. I hope you take this to heart.

Scientific fraud is a systemic problem. It isn't just a problem with "a few bad apples." Most scientists don't even realize they're perpetuating false notions or fraudulent data, because of how they've been taught.

LMAO! Scientists are taught from freshmen year to err on the side of caution in their research in order to prevent false or inaccurate conclusions. The very first thing students learn is techniques for dealing with uncertainty in measurements. Significant figures, etc.

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~labgroup/pdf/Error_analysis.pdf

This is the kind of basic shit taught from day one. The notion of scientists en masse all making large error gaffes that result in everyone being wrong is fucking absurd. You made a claim about how they are taught? They are brainwashed from day one to work in a way that MINIMIZES error. This is the entire point of uncertainty calculations, which, once again, are taught from day one.

The reason theories are wrong is NOT because of errors on part of the scientists. It is because of new data becoming available. Theories are accurate within the scope of measurement available.

FOR EXAMPLE, we know that, within our ability to measure, the gravitational force is dependent upon the square of distance from the body causing the gravitational field. However, it could be that that is only true for large distances, and for much much smaller distances (distances we can't measure), the relationship is different (if so, this would allow us to test if there are parallel universes whose gravitational affects can be felt from onebrane to another). If it turns out to be so, does this mean scientists were brainwashed into an error? No! It means the available measurement tools were not sufficient to measure at that level.

Moreover, a lot of them know that if they publish controversial papers on a subject, they'll lose their hire-ability and credibility on future research projects. For example, if a scientist published a research paper on "The Heritibility of IQ and its Effect on Poverty Levels" they'd be entirely underfunded and after publishing would probably get thrown out of the scientific establishment for being a "social darwinist" or "racist" for even implying that IQ is largely heritable (and has a strong racial component), and how inherent intelligence might account more for the difference in poverty levels than socioeconomic disparities or racial discrimination - that is assuming they aren't forced to retract their paper.

So what you're saying is THESE GUYS
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797615612727

lost their hire-ability and credibility, despite being published in a peer reviewed journal? (they showed that in the US IQ is more hereditary than in other parts of the world, showing that the hypothesis that social states matter more than genetics is only true in some conditions)

Oh shit, one of them got published again two years later:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167702617730889

Hmmm... There seems to be a counterexample to your claim.

At best, the only thing that even remotely is in line with your claim is that scientists tend to be a conservative lot when it comes to science. That is, they won't try to publish something that "changes the game" unless the evidence backs them up (that is, scientists do not try to publish speculation. If they don't have solid evidence, they don't even bother, even if they know deep down that they are right.).

They'd also get "debunked" by dozens of well-funded charlatans for the next century. On the other hand, if some goon produced an article about how race is meaningless as a predictor of intelligence and that funding is all people need to become intellectual equals, then they'd probably get lots of support, both in terms of money for research and moral support from the masses, and that researcher would improve his career standing, making him more hire-able in the future. The "liberal" (I can't even call it that, since it's in reality anti-truth) bias in science is astounding.

First of all, your claim about race in science is absolute bullshit. Not only has examining this topic NOT resulted in people being shunned, it is an actual and legitimate scientific question that is studied and debated. FFS read the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#United_States_test_scores

Meanwhile I just proved this bullshit wrong by posting a study on the hereditary nature of IQ and then posted another study published by one of the same people two years later. More, I have already explained to you have science funding works. It does not work how you think, where some secret underground funder is buying the scientist. The money is ALREADY ALLOTTED each year, and the people who decide who gets funded are THE PEERS of the people asking for the funding.

As for why scientists are not saying race is the cause of intelligence, if you actually knew a goddamned thing about science you'd know why: There is too much noise in the signal to know. So many factors contribute to intelligence, and brains are plastic, meaning people can get smarter simply by being in a situation that encourages learning. That is why some animals can do amazing things while others of the same species cannot.

Tell me, how do you ISOLATE THE VARIABLES of society itself in order to determine if race is the primary factor in intelligence? YOU FUCKING CAN'T. THAT is why scientists don't even bother with the claim in any absolute fashion, and instead focus on tiny microcosms of the issue (where variables are easier to control). Not to mention, enough is known about the human brain (and brains in general, including animal brains) to have an idea about how much plasticity they have, and how important outside influence is in how intelligent someone becomes. Furthermore, the very definitions of race are murky as shit. Is Obama white? Is he black? Are African Americans less black than Africans? Are white Americans less white than Europeans? Almost every hereditary line is completely fucked with intermixing somewhere along the line. There are no pure races. Bottom line: there are far too many variables, and racial classifications are far too imprecise, for actual science to give much by way of enlightenment to the question, beyond focusing on minute details.

Finally, the Flynn affect puts a little bit of a hole in your theory: if genetics was the most important factor in intelligence, why are there such significant leaps in intelligence scores in a single generation of a race?

This is an issue fraught with uncountable variables. To claim genetics is the only reason for IQ gaps is completely fucking retarded on multiple levels.

You're brainwashed, m'dude. There is no kind way of telling you this. I don't care how smart you are or think you are, you've missed the big picture, and that might as well make you stupid.

And you, m'dude, are willfully ignorant about how the scientific process works, and how they are trained, but are speaking as if you know. You didn't even know how science funding works, yet here you are, still so utterly convinced of your baseless bullshit.

Not to mention, there is a glaring logical hole in your argument: the government supposedly wants to regulate the oil industry, while the oil industry wants fewer regulations. These two are actively fighting against each other on this. Why would big oil pay for research that would cause the government to further regulate them and hurt their bottom line?

I've never said the government wants to regulate big oil itself, I said that the government wants to regulate you. They want to use global warming as an excuse to put further restrictions on your life and freedom of movement, and to monitor you even further than they are already by tracking data for what and how much you consume, waste, where you go, what you do, etc etc. If you can convince people that there's a global crisis, you can easily get them to give up their freedoms to feel like they're "saving the planet" and "making a difference."

Yes, that fits quite well with your need for the evils of this world to have meaning and structure, instead of the terrifying meaninglessness of existence you are subconsciously desperate to avoid dealing with.

And even if regulating people's usage of oil would eventually begin phasing out the oil industry, the overpriced experimental "alternative energy" industry can be a very lucrative replacement. Highly convoluted tools that break easily, are too hard for the average person to fix, are all "smart" internet/WIFI connected and easily traceable/monitored, and which are horribly inefficient will work just fine. Not only do they get more control, which is ultimately more important than money, but they still make money doing it.

The reason alternative energy is overpriced is because oil/gas has already had the activation energy poured into it by nature. In other words, nature hauled the rock almost to the top of the hill for us, and all we have to do is give it a little push to start the reaction. Whereas with water, we have to pour the energy in ourselves in order to use it as fuel, which is precisely why it is not an economical fuel source.

Nuclear energy is quite useful as well, although it is harder to take advantage of than coal and oil (due to hopefully obvious reasons). Solar energy is more difficult because of logistical hurdles, and in addition at this point in the science we are far from reaching the efficiency of plants in terms of converting solar energy to something useful. However, it is still useful enough that it is exploited in many places in the world.

But things like energy from water (or hydrogen fuel)? As I pointed out, the problem is that you have to separate an already stable molecule, which requires energy input. Oil/coal/nuclear requires a lot less energy input, and that is why it is more prevalent.

Now, I'm sure you're about to talk about some nonsense about a magnet giving free energy. I can assure you, as someone who has studied physics (unlike you), the notion is ludicrous. The only way that could work is if the laws of physics are not the same tomorrow as they are today (in other words, the constancy of the laws of physics with respect to time is interconnected with the conservation of energy). I can prove this mathematically, but you'll probably claim that Noether's theorem (which is where this comes from) is a conspiracy.