Azalin
-
Posts
7,848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Azalin
-
-
18 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
The easiest way to avoid this issue is to not reply to a troll's thread.
Or to not reply to troll posts within threads. People should realize that you have to step down to an idiot's level to argue with them, and all you wind up with is two idiots arguing.
There are a few who post here (under various names) who are trolling the living ***** out of this board, and will continue to do so as long as people take the bait. I see a lot of intelligent, informed people allowing themselves to be lured into a crap-throwing contest when they'd be better off not saying anything. There are plenty of divergent opinions on this board without having to lock horns with a handful of immature choads.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
Nikki Haley - she's popular in the party, has legislative and executive experience, and strong international affairs background. She has no major gaffes or scandals that I know of, has a good relationship with the press, and can be strong and direct without coming off like an unholy B word. If she wants it, I think the 2024 nomination is hers to lose.
If I had to pick a candidate based solely on my personal preferences, it would be Crenshaw.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:
We should all just ignore himIndeed, but like moths to a flame, lots of people just can't help responding to trolls.
37 minutes ago, meazza said:At this point, every new poster should go on ignore just to be safe.
At this point, every new poster is another sockpuppet of someone already trolling here.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Margarita said:
its a great question..why are we all here then...?
It's not about us, it's about them.
And if they are stupid enough to think a riot is an acceptable means of creating a jumping off point to discuss how to fix anything, they will likely have plenty of time to reflect upon their mistakes from inside a jail cell.
-
3 minutes ago, Margarita said:
oh but i disagree it certainly has here.
Well bully for them. They really instigated a constructive dialogue by getting us to argue on our forum, didn't they?
-
On 6/7/2020 at 10:20 AM, B-Man said:
Without the likes of Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, and the immortal Mel Blanc, is it really Looney Tunes?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Margarita said:
SMH mind reading and declaring a persons sole intent off of a 2-3 word slogan now thats fooking briliant too. Maybe just MAYBE its a jumping off for discussion and positive changes?
People rioting, looting, and chanting in the streets are rarely attempting to provide a "jumping off" point for discussion.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Beast said:
You are spamming these boards.
Exactly. Why anyone thinks they'll get any different by engaging him is beyond me.
-
4
-
-
22 hours ago, Jaraxxus said:
I'm obviously doing something wrong.
You and me both - I'm gonna have to step up my game!
-
12 minutes ago, ALF said:
Living wage jobs regardless of education. Those were mostly outsourced to low wage countries.
What's the incentive for becoming educated then?
-
1
-
-
-
10 minutes ago, LB3 said:
I hadn't seen this. Do you have a link where he states to rough them up while handcuffed?
I thought the exact same thing when I read that. I'd love to see that link too.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Margarita said:
he says he is the Law and Order President but if he invoked something he hasn't done legally then not so much. Maybe its just a procedural issue but he can't have it both ways can he?
I'm afraid you're going to need to be a bit more specific - that's far too general a criticism.
-
5 minutes ago, Margarita said:
I dont think donald Trump cares if it is illegal or not. His concern is "Law and Order" though **cough**
If He wasn't interested in "Law and Order", he wouldn't be doing anything at all, would he?
-
2
-
-
On 5/28/2020 at 2:22 PM, RealKayAdams said:
I’m equally frustrated over the politicization of this subject, but it is what it is, yeah? I guess the best we can do is maintain an awareness of all the bad faith actors and cognitive biases on both sides of the debate and be willing to call everyone out on both sides when necessary, especially our own. I’ll start calling them out here because I’m filled with sass and that’s how I roll. First and foremost, the fossil fuel industries manage to play the game effectively by purchasing politicians on both sides and promoting media disinformation campaigns. I’d also say some right-wing voters have turned what was once a healthy classical American skepticism of experts, authority figures, government power, and government program inefficiencies into a counterproductive Alex Jones-style pathology. On the left, we have our hordes of hypocritical voters who throw the word “green” around to virtue signal about saving Mother Earth and who make fun of those Alex Jones-style conservatives online, meanwhile doing absolutely nothing in their own private lives to improve global sustainability. Then there was Michael Moore’s most recent film that launched a wonderful salvo at the possible bad faith actors operating on the left, the ones who are shilling for select renewable energy industries or co-opting the green movement for purely self-promotional reasons. Last but not least, we get to my favorite political enemy: the entire Democratic party establishment, which effectively operates as one giant bad faith actor working for a variety of neoliberalism-inclined corporatists dependent on maintaining the energy status quo. It’s why I think so little has been achieved for the American green movement this century, while our European counterparts have moved light-years ahead of us in green politics. Even when facing a looming economic depression and an important election, these so-called Dem party “leaders” can’t even cobble together something like a Green New Deal-esque basic public works plan to energize the voting base and score easy political points. Oh I should also mention a major political fissure emerging on the left: mainstream leftists inclined to be content enough with the given panoply of renewable energy alternatives versus the eco-socialists (my wonderful people) who prefer exploring all the hard questions first like technical difficulties with achieving carbon neutrality on solar/wind alone, the nature of human consumption, overpopulation, land rights and resource claims, public transportation and urban/suburban sprawl, blah blah blah.
I don't think the politicization of the issue can or should be waved away so dismissively. Injecting politics will always poison an issue, which is the absolute last thing that problems relying on science for their solution need. I can't stress this strongly enough: as much as I favor taking reasonable steps to mitigate the effect we have on our environment as a whole, I am wholeheartedly against anything like AOC's green new deal, or anything else that so blatantly asserts itself into our economy. I believe we can have both a robust free market economy and responsible energy policy.
-
On 5/22/2020 at 10:22 PM, Cinga said:
Anyone else find it hilarious when a snowflake calls conservatives snowflakes?
That's a frequent effort made by EII, and why I've suspected this clown to be a sockpuppet.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:
I’d feel more comfortable verifying my response with a friend of mine who happens to be a professional oceanographer. But until I hear back from her, my best attempt at an answer is that the climate data going back to about 1900 is acceptably accurate, partly because old analog measuring equipment for climate metrics (temperature, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, humidity, maybe also wind) can still be used today without losing practically anything in accuracy. Also, the data HAD to meet high accuracy thresholds in order to make early twentieth century technology (particularly airplanes) possible and agricultural businesses able to run effectively.
Now whether or not they still use this climate data for making calculations? I want to say yes because I remember reading popular science articles in the past that referenced changes from early twentieth century climates. For a given location on earth, I believe they take temperature and rainfall averages for about a generation’s length (25 years or so) to determine the climate. Then they increment these averages forward in time and plot the trend. The “normal” climate can then either be defined as the original average (i.e. the least anthropogenically perturbed) or arbitrarily chosen at a later date in time, depending on what is considered acceptable for civilization in terms of its civil and agricultural infrastructure.
I haven’t said much about ocean data, which is super important to climate because the oceans are a major heat sink and greenhouse gas sink for the atmosphere. I want to say that the temperature and pressure data was equally accurate back then as it was for the atmosphere, but probably WAY less complete because we hadn’t explored nearly as much of it back then as we have since World War 2. Because submarine technology depends on good temperature and pressure data, the range of our ocean data in the early twentieth century possibly varied in direct proportion to the depths and geographic locations which these designs evolved to handle.
This was a really good question you raised. Global warming skepticism is healthy and should be encouraged, given the huge economic stakes. My only concern is when people hold strong opinions but aren’t intellectually curious enough to seek the knowledge that better informs these opinions (I’m not including you or most anyone reading this thread). It’s also crucial to establish in one’s own mind a standard of new facts or evidence or scientific insight that would cause one to completely reverse their old opinion. This goes for everybody on both sides of the debate. I myself have a pretty good idea of what I need to see to join the side of global warming deniers. Hopefully I’m there in about 5 years…
Well, when we start getting to global-scale fluid/thermodynamics it's best if I do more listening than talking. I guess with me it keeps coming down to how politicized the issue has become, and how much of the information I can accept as genuine, accurate, and unbiased. I don't consider myself a climate change denier, despite that I've been called that around here many times. I think that to simply deny any possibility of our influence on climate is just as idiotic as preaching irredeemable MMGW doom & gloom. Even the most conservative people I know all want clean air and water, a healthy environment, and a stable climate. The influence of party politics is , in my opinion, the greatest impediment to getting reasonable policy put in place.
-
1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:
Fair question. We’re really moving outside my purview here because I’m not a practicing climate scientist, as you know and a few others love to emphasize. But I’ll try my best:
Without looking through the published climatology scientific literature to tell you exactly how “normal climates” are being determined, I would say that it’s perfectly possible and maybe likely that they are truncating the chronological weather/ocean data somewhere around the middle twentieth century. They could do this without losing any understanding of the climate trends, and then they could extrapolate backward in time and compare with the older data for accuracy.
I also don’t necessarily believe the older data from the first half of the twentieth century is bad. Modern measuring equipment is going to be more precise, but how much is really lost in accuracy? For example, even the most basic mercury thermometer is very reliable, even if you can’t discern between hundredths of a degree like you could with a digital thermometer. I do know that NACA, the predecessor to NASA, had somehow been compiling extremely accurate (and precise) atmospheric temperature and pressure data soon after the Wright brothers. They needed highly reliable data to design even remotely reliable airplanes for the world wars and for commerce. Civil engineers, farmers, naval architects, and the military also needed fairly reliable weather and ocean data in the early twentieth century in order to have success at their jobs.
Hope this helps? Maybe we should e-mail a real expert like Greta Thunberg for answers lol?!
Thanks, I appreciate your response - you can probably tell, I'm no climate scientist either. As I've already said, my skepticism is mostly based on what I consider to be assumptions with regard to what "normal" is as it applies to our climate. I don't try to convince anyone that there is only one truth to the state of Earth's climate and how it evolves, but rather to see beyond what global political tribalism demands we believe about the science of climatology. It's become too politicized, and people line up on one side or another based mostly on what their team believes. That's about as unscientific as it gets.
I didn't mean to say that I think the data gathered pre-NASA/NOAA is necessarily bad, just that there's room to question its accuracy. Room enough in my opinion to hold off on putting restrictive energy policies in place, or take directives from groups like the IPCC. I think we need to understand that it's important for us to be ecologically responsible where we can while working to develop more efficient means of generating energy in the future, and that we can do both without increasing cost.
email Greta?
-
7 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:
Qualitatively, many people refer to a “normal” climate as that which existed right before the start of the Industrial Revolution, with slight adjustments for any non-anthropogenic changes that have occurred since then.
But for the purposes of science and energy policy, in most cases “normal” is a quantitative reference to averages of atmosphere and ocean climate data taken over the past 125 years or so and compiled by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Any scientific paper referencing “normal” climates will provide a more detailed description of how these numbers were calculated. When research gets interpreted and summarized by the mass media for the public, little details and annotations like these tend to get omitted. But I don’t think there is any deliberate dishonesty in play here.
Note that the “normal” climate reference that is commonly in use does account for some man-made global warming. The concept of normality is about what’s acceptable and what’s not. The vast majority of the world’s modern farming system and civil infrastructure was put together with these twentieth-century climate averages in mind.
There is no denial that climate is a dynamic entity, independent of man. The issue is how to explain the unprecedentedly sudden and stark changes (by geologic time scale standards) that have occurred curiously since the late 1800’s, but without the benefit of explanation from factors like large-scale volcanic activity or meteorite strikes. Anyone with a better explanation than man-induced greenhouse gas emissions will become a scientific legend.
There's not a lot that I disagree with here, but I'm not completely in agreement with you when you say: ""normal” is a quantitative reference to averages of atmosphere and ocean climate data taken over the past 125 years or so and compiled by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)". I have faith in the research and calculations of both organizations, but only to a point. I sure feel old admitting this, but I'm slightly older than NASA, and almost a decade older than NOAA. That gives them a good 50-60 years of hard data to work with, but to go back 125 years takes a lot more theorizing than working with empirical, contemporary evidence. That's my biggest beef with the entire issue - how can an honest, legitimate trajectory be calculated when "point A" on the chart has such potential to be incorrect? Maybe it can be, maybe not. I personally don't believe it's solid enough to base policy that may potentially have a negative economic impact on us.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:
Now that's an obituary!
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, shoshin said:
I remember the last pastor who tried this. Maybe it's a test of which sect has the right answer?
If that's the case, then the atheists win hands down.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Magox said:
This is another fantastic article. Some of the most well written stuff on the media and censorship have been coming from the left wing of the country with Greenwald and Taibbi. The only difference is that these guys are true blue lefties, the old school kind that used to care about civil liberties. Not today's left wing hacks.
The article goes into Ronan Farrow, "Resistance Journalism", Russia gate conspiracy and general views on today's broken media.
If you have about 7 minutes to read this, I highly suggest you do. It's fantastic. This point with me resonates.
This bit stood out as well:
"Put another way: As long the targets of one’s conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven — even false — attacks on such people, while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby frauds."
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
Another tremendous loss. Rest in peace, and thanks for all the laughs.
-
On 5/13/2020 at 10:46 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:
This article is great- it says don't be fooled by weather being 30-40 degrees below normal this week because in a few months it will be a few degrees above normal. They also say Florida will be hotter than normal this month but it has been cooler than normal almost every day so far.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.prevention.com/life/amp32435627/summer-heat-predictions-2020/
I would love to see a little honesty, or at least clarification, with regard to the widespread use of the nebulous benchmark known as "normal". Too many of those trying to shape energy policy present Earth's climate as something static; that without humanity the four seasons would pass normally with only the occasional heat wave or cold snap. We know for a fact that the Earth was much warmer during past eras, and we know that there's been multiple ice ages. Some scientists suggest that we're still emerging from the most recent one. We know that the oceans used to be lower due to there being much more glacial ice - the lowered oceans allowed for the Aleutian Island land bridge that brought the first Americans here from Asia. Proof of a dynamic climate is all around us, but too often climate-debate talking points come back to referencing "normal" as a fixed level of routine weather and temperature that mankind (especially capitalist mankind) threatens to destroy.
-
1
-
Songs that wouldn't have been written/recorded in 2020
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
Frank Zappa - Bobby Brown Goes Down, Magdalena, Jewish Princess, You Are What You Is, Jumbo Go Away, Suicide Chump, Charlie's Enormous Mouth, and many, many more.