Don’t you just love how bipartisan we’ve become around here?! I DO!
Via: Made it up all by myself
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The Difference Between Sarkozy, Netanyahu and Obama | If You Wannabe My Marxist Dictator, You Gotta Get With My Friends Next »
Republican Food Shelves
» 180 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Wahoo on Hero’s Shawarma MrsQ Of Philly on GREECE neoritter on Progress Poker !neoritter on Progress Poker vrestal on North Carolina Today Geary on GREECE MrsQ Of Philly on Progress Poker MrsQ Of Philly on Progress Poker Joe Biden on Hero’s Shawarma waggle238 on Time Travel Protester 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Capshunz: I Was Just Trying to Help
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
i only eat
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Me mishurd u...
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Koalafications? Ha!
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Hi Jessie! BLERRRRRRRRG.
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
I'm Not Sure I Like This
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Reader Squees: Miracle Bun
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
I Don't Give a Damn About My Bad Reputation
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Shut Up. Pie
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Only You...
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
They'll Never Think to Look For Me in a Rap Video!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
J. Cole Totally Looks Like Javale McGee
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Toasted Squee
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Optometrist Dreams
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Streetfront View
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
FIRST!!!!!!
Dumpster diving (known as skipping in the UK) is the practice of sifting through commercial or residential trash to find items that have been discarded by their owners, but which may be useful to the dumpster diver.
The dumpster diving term originates from the best-known manufacturer of commercial trash bins, Dempsey, who use the trade name “Dumpster” for their bins, and the fanciful image of someone leaping head first into a dumpster as if it were a swimming pool. In practice, the size and design of most dumpsters makes it possible to retrieve many items from the outside of dumpsters without having to “dive” into them.
The practice of dumpster diving is also known variously as bin-diving, containering, D-mart, dumpstering, tatting, or “recycled” food.
A similar term is binner and is often used to describe people that collect recyclable materials for their deposit value.
Traditionally, most people who resort to dumpster-diving are forced to do so out of economic necessity, but this is not the case today.[citation needed] In Vancouver, Binners or bottle collectors search garbage cans and dumpsters for recyclable materials that can be redeemed for their deposit value. These binners earn on average $40 Canadian per day for several garbage bags full of discarded containers.
The karung guni, Zabbaleen, the rag and bone man, waste picker, junk man or bin hoker are people who make their living by sorting and trading trash. A similar process known as gleaning was practiced in rural areas and some ancient agricultural societies, where the residue from farmers’ fields was collected.
Some dumpster divers self-identified as freegans aim to avoid their ecological impact by living exclusively from dumpster dived goods.
Artists use discarded materials to create works of found art or assemblage. Students may use salvaged high tech items in technical projects. Still others may dumpster dive just to indulge in their curiosity for unusual items.
Dumpster diving, used in support of academic research, is a tool for garbologists, who study the sociology and archeology of trash in modern life. There is a major outpost of academic garbology at the University of Arizona, directed for some decades by William Rathje. Others, because of their profession, may use dumpster diving as a method of procedure for private investigators, police, and others seeking information and material for official purposes.
Supermarkets throw away large amounts of unsold food products.
By reusing resources destined for the landfill, dumpster diving becomes an environmentalist endeavor (and is thus practiced by many pro-green communities). The wastefulness of consumer society and throw-away culture drives some individuals to rescue usable items (e.g. computers) from destruction and divert them to the less fortunate. Some see it as their only way of making any money or getting some needed goods in bad economic times.
Irregular, blemished, or damaged items that are still otherwise functional are regularly thrown away. Discarded food that might have slight imperfections, that is near its expiration date, or that is simply being replaced by newer stock is often thrown away despite being still edible. Many retailers are reluctant to sell this stock at reduced prices due to the belief that people will buy it instead of the higher priced newer stock, that extra handling time is required, and that there are liability risks.
Arguments against dumpster diving often focus on the health and cleanliness implications of people rummaging in trash. This exposes the dumpster divers to potential health risks, and, especially if the dumpster diver does not return the non-usable items to their previous location, may leave trash scattered around. Divers can also be seriously injured or killed by garbage collection vehicles. Further, there are also concerns around the legality of taking items which may still technically belong to the person who threw them away (or to the waste management operator), and whether the taking of some items like discarded documents is a violation of privacy.
2 times in one day? You must be in a groove today.
I didn’t want to leave you hanging.
THAT would have been EMBARASSING
I think this is called Freeganism. But perhaps that only applies to the practice of seeking out from waste bins and consuming the perfectly healthy food, that’s thrown away by the supermarkets because it’s a day past it’s expiration date.
So that’s what they call it. I just call it “dirty trash-eating hippies”.
Maybe this is that magical trickle-down system we’ve heard so much about? The poor get table scraps from the rich?
And, I call it “stupid hippies using “reuse” as an excuse to be cheap to take food that would normally be taken and eaten by hungry homeless people.
I did not realize that you had to be homeless to be going hungry. FYI, some people pay to keep a roof over their heads first, then pay for food. It’s hard to decide which is more important isn’t it?
Well, seeing as atleast one those “hippies” portrayed is danish (the red sweater with three yellow dots is typically associated with the freetown of Christinia), there wouldn’t be as many hungry homeless people compared to the US, I suppose.
The food would just be wasted…
Oh the glories of capitalism, socialistic libtards who don’t work deserve to suffer like this. In fact this might make them appreciate the value of hard work.
The glory of Laize-Faire capitalism, socialistic libtards need to suffer like this. Just so that they learn the value of true hard work.
Kind of ironic considering that Republicans and conservatives give more money to charities than Democrats and liberals
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=republicans+more+generous&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
We acknowledge it as obvious flame bait.
Obviously.
Sort of like this LOL?
I would really like to see the raw data . . .
according to the article, liberal households have a higher average income than conservative households. this is very hard to swallow. I just don’t think it is valid . . . and that makes every other claim in this article questionable.
I’m not big on American politics but aren’t there a lot of poorer republicans in the south?
Yeah, and they consistently vote against their own best interests.
Yes they do, and it is sad.
it is the result of de-funding education. I don’t have cites yet, but I strongly suspect that number of republican votes among the poor exists in inverse proportion to the money spent in that state on education. Texas is close to the bottom, and voters just returned Perry to power.
duh
http://thepragmaticprogressive.org/wp/2011/03/02/does-illiteracy-equal-conservative-voting-you-decide/
missing citations, be wary of validity
Research by Arthur C. Brooks indicates that households who identify as “liberal” have incomes about 6% higher than those that identify as “conservative”.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
The average income of Republican party members is also, on the aggregate, lower than the average income of Democratic party members:
http://european-americanblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-are-democrats-richer-than.html
However, if you break it down to the individual and state/local level, the rich are more likely to vote Republican/conservative while the poor are still more likely to vote Democrat/liberal, as one might expect.
I’m a little surprised that this information surprised you though. Did you really think liberals got Obama elected on a billion $1 donations from soup kitchen volunteers? In the 2006 mid term elections and the 2008 presidential elections, Democrats picked up more cash from Wall Street than Republicans. Historically, Wall Street favors the Democratic party by a fairly significant margin. Virtually every tech billionaire is a contributor to more liberal than conservative causes. And very liberal states like New York and California tend to be huge money centers. Believe what you want, but the class wars aren’t quite as cut and dried along ideological and party lines as you might be inclined to believe based on political stereotypes and caricatures.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130160941
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/31/news/political_donations/index.htm
But global warming is real because there’s studies proving it?
No. There are countless studies which support the theory that human actions greatly contribute to global warming, but as with all true science, there are no studies that “prove” it.
Which means some dismiss it outright so they do ‘t feel bad about driving a giant SUV.
there’s plenty of studies that show that bigfoot is real, but we have no proof he exists….. so tell me, Where’s bigfoot?
No. There are actually NO studies that shows that Bigfoot is real.
Unless you consider pictures to be “studies”.
Studies are a colomerate of pictures, witnesses, etc…. soo umm yeah, nice try.
Sorry, forgot my “!”. Studies are also a description of pictures themselves. That was the point of my saying that. Your sarcasm is duly noted however.
Studies also tend to use measurements and statistics, such as the ones taken by meteorologists in regards to the subject of climate change research. Several measurements taken over time can provide a clear look at trends and the way that things are changing over time, in this case the relative warming of the earth. Pictures and witness testimony can also be used to gather information
Hey I threw in a etc…… next time I’ll throw out a misc. Better?
- Anthropology of the Unknown: Sasquatch and Similar Phenomena, a Conference on Humanoid Monsters.
- Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the Dark Divide (1995)
- Why There Has To Be A Sasquatch by Coon
- Sasquatch: the Apes Among Us- John Green
Yet, there is no evidence.
? You mean photos, videoa, eye witness accounts, footprints, hair samples, etc? Show me the evidence that man made climate change? If it were “true” why wouldn’t the most polluted cities have higher than normal temperatures on a yearly basis? Or we’d have “hot spots” where there’s an over concentration of Green House gases?
While I’m probably the wrong person to be theorizing on this, the most likely reason why we don’t see ‘hot spots’ of CO2 has to do with weather conditions and, in particular, wind patterns.
Wind blows particles and other things such as clouds around around, and it stands to reason that the wind could also blow concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from location to location.
The “evidence” for Bigfoot can be faked. Look up Cliff Crook of Bothell, Washington, as a “for example”.
Begin here for evidence of anthropogenic climate change:
http://realclimate.org
It’s far too much to go into here.
PSST… “evidence” for climate change can be faked too…. Anyone else remember that story?
I think you’re clearly missing my point…. EVERY arguemetn you use to discredit Bigfoot CAN and WILL be used against you in the Court of Climate Change.
I know, but…
Well, how many climatologists have basically stated that the earth’s climate is changing in a discernible manner and we may be the cause of it?
Please. Just stop with the Sasquatch nonsense. Putting aside that its the biggest strawman argument I’ve ever seen, there are thousands of scientific, peer-reviewed, unbiased studies showing climate change is real and that humans are a contributing factor. There are hundreds of fuzzy pictures and stories about people seeing something they think was bigfoot, mostly by people who want to see bigfoot.
So, what you’re saying is that thousands of organizations are all faking the data?
Lots.
… oh, you wanted an actual number?
That’s…kind of the thing I was getting at.
For that many people to get the data completely wrong, there would have to be a massive error in all of their research or a deliberate attempt to alter the numbers. And although that latter argument has been trotted out at times, especially in the wake of those climate change emails, one must wonder what these organizations have to gain from such an action.
In any case, I still think that not doing anything to be more ‘environmentally friendly’ is an incredibly stupid idea.
Exactly! Why do those opposed to climate-change immediately revert to, “well, man-made climate-change is a myth, so why bother making the air cleaner for our children if the sea levels aren’t going to rise?”
CC: There are those that come and say it’s man-made, but it’s not the majority that the liberal agenda would like you to believe. Why do you think TinCan and Astonishing are getting upset? The truth is out there. Yes there is climate change, but what’s causing it? We really have no idea.
Astonishing: I’m saying there’s more out there than you think. How many have been caught faking data, or “fudging it” to match the desired outcome? Do we need to revisist “Climate Gate” which basically reset the whole agenda? Anyone?
Sorry, ILPB. It’s more incredulous than mad. I’m not angry about anything. It’s just, when faced with willful ignorance, I try to educate. It’s the helper in me.
What we have with Bigfoot is a couple grainy photos and a video, a couple of “footprints” (again, research a man named Cliff Crook), and people claiming to have seen Bigfoot.
What we have with anthropogenic climate change is thousands upon thousands studies of hard evidence such as actual temperature data and core samples, across thousands of organizations across the world and anyone can crunch the numbers.
You’re right. It’s exactly the same.
CC: I think it’s b/c of the natural tendacy of fierce independents not to be “forced” into somethign based off of false pretenses. How is someone claiming harsher EPA regulations on industry thereby increasing costs up to 15% due to false information that climate change is man-made any better than someone saying you need to have you groin crobed at airport security due to false information that it’ll keep you safer?
Also, yes, it *IS* the majority. A *VAST* majority.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
97-98%.
Once again Climate Gate has been completely ignored. But hey if you guys like to think your side has no agenda, by all means, enjoy.
TinCan: I’m not ignorant, I just ask questions the studies can’t answer, that the public who eats these studies up as irrefutable proof don’t seem to ask. That’s not ignorance on my part but dilligence.
Astonishing: Your ignornace on the study of bigfoot is as biased as your life. It’s clear in how you type your disdain for cryptozoology is clear as day. If you could see the actual evidence of Bigfoot (not that I believe in him but I love a good “study”) you’d realize there’s a lot more than a few grainy photos, videos, and faked footprints. There are blood and tissue samples, hair samples from a “unknown primate”. (Trust me I know all about the hoaxers, it’s the fun part of the study)
Actually your thousands of studies from all over the world (btw there’s research on BF all over the world too) actually is not consistent with itself. There are many a scientist who’ll see the same “data” and draw a completely different conclusion, and or say that data is “wrong” or “contaminated”. Also how long have scientists been taking temperature readings, and how long has the Earth been around? That’s right I can totally tell a trend of my metabolism over my entire life by .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second of observance.
ClimateGate HAS been completely ignored by those that know anything about the subject.
Why?
BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT OF CONTEXT AND USING NONSTANDARD TERMS FOR THINGS.
Sorry for the caps but I don’t know how to get people to actually read this type of thing otherwise.
Astonishing: Do you really want to argue that AGAIN! JAC destroyed your arguement before. Hold JAC… OH JAC!!! Can you please re-educate Mr. Astonishing on how false his information is, AGAIN!
Look, can we at least agree that pumping pollutants into the atmosphere is generally a BAD IDEA? Or that having some form of environmental regulation in place might be a good idea?
You can see the data for yourself and read what actual climate scientists have to say about it.
Or not.
Your call. I will listen to climate scientists. People that actually know what they’re talking about.
Go forth my sheeple Astonishing. When you decide to question them, instead of annointing them the all knowing, I will glaldy discuss with you.
In my book, if they can’t answer simple questions I’ve asked (which other’s have asked and left unanswered) then I can’t trust their “facts”.
Y’all do it on here all the time. Hearts are red. I love red. I must love hearts…..
For the love of-
Do we have any climatologists in the audience with us today? Some clarification may be needed on this issue.
DSG, we’re arguing with someone that has clearly shown they don’t understand the concept of scientific study. It’s pointless to go any further. I’m stopping.
You’re probably right.
I should question whether the Earth is a spheroid or that the Earth revolves around the sun. I mean, instead of anointing scientists that say it does. Perhaps the Earth really IS flat and perhaps we were born yesterday.
!! Well, maybe you were.
/!!
Excuse me while I go hit my head against this wall.
ILPB:
Please, ask your question(s). I’ll answer it to the best of my ability. If you already asked them, I apologize but I missed them so please repeat them.
Thanks!
Could someone please explain to me what both sides of the climate change debate have to gain from the alteration and/or complete ignoring of data?
Kiwi: If it’s shown that man is causing climate change/global warming through, for example, the burning of fossil fuels, then governments around the world would begins to impose restrictions and regulations on fossil fuel companies, potentially costing them a lot of money. Also, in response, new industries will pop up to replace fossil fuel companies, thereby costing them even MORE money.
If they can alter the data to show that it isn’t happening (as they have done in the past), then they can continue their daily operations without these restrictions or threat of new companies cropping up.
Just because the accounts of the Snipe are unsubstantiated doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
BUT – if human interference is affecting world’s climate (which it is… to some degree) does it matter whether ‘Global Warming’ is due to us or not?
IOW, we probably ought not accelerate the problem, even if we’re not sure we understand why the problem is there.
AND, if we sit on our hands too much bickering about WHY Climate Change is happening, we could be making the matter much, much worse.
::bows out for moar coffee::
DSG: So in other words it’s big industries like, for example, the oil and coal industries wanting to put the maximising of profits above all else and spending as little as legally possible?
I’d think of it more as these industries focusing more on short term profit as businesses, even though the methods they employ in this profit acquisition will have negative long term effects for them and everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Climategate. W/ links to sauce and all that jazz…I’m lazy.
Here’s just one instance:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2002/April/02_enrd_233.htm
Both sides have valid points on the subject of climate change. The issue is that with only 100 years of absolute climate knowledge it’s hard to gauge climate trends when they change every few hundred to thousand years. As ILPB said you can’t make a good prediction off of such a short span of time.
So far we have yet to see any significant change that we previously know of in climate. For instance the newly regrown vinyards in Southern England. Are the cause of rising temperatures. Sure you can claim that the temperature is rising, but would that necessarily indicate manmade climate change? No. Southern England used to be able to have exceptional vinyards, so much so that English wine at one point was considered better than French. These cicumstances in the climate changed purely by natural phenomena. This would be an indication that so far the climate has merely gone back to what it was before. It’s already agreed on that the CO2 levels and general climate fluctuates throughout the centuries.
Other mitigating factors beyond the normal ebb and flow of the weather have affected climate, some even recently. The eruption of Krakatoa in 1680 helped to decrease temperatures. Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillippines erupted in 1991. The effects of that eruption was said to affect global climates for the next 10-15 years, and in fact decreased temperatures by about 1-2 degrees from ’91 to ’93. While not as large recent eruptions in Iceland could contribute to decreasing temperatures.
It’s hard to see the effects of “global warming” when mother nature’s in house A/C has been working so well. It is a fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere can increase temperatures though. If our emissions continue to rise, the Earth’s natural cooling will eventually run out.
So you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that climate change is not man-made, but we have the potential to make it worse?
Ahh TinCan, just b/c I didn’t blindly fall into the “God bless scientists for showing me my evil ways” as you have so eloquantly done, I must tell you I do understand scientific studies (I’ve only funded about 30 this last year), and I understand that you must take each one with a grain of salt, b/c behind every study is an agenda (especially one that involves funding). WHAT does a scientist have to gain by saying, “Yes the climate is changing, but it’s natural and there’s nothing we can do about it.” BAM no more funding needed, BUT “CLIMATE is changing b/c man is spewing forth toxic gases into the world and cutting down trees, and murdering baby goats. We’re all gonna die unless you give me more money to study this new ‘alternative’ fuel!” will get you more funding. As y’all like to say, follow the money trail. Thank you and goodnight for showing your true and biased ignorance. Once again your lack of respect is noted and will be flung back at you in the future.
Given you’re statement that an essay can be a scientific study, I have difficulty believing you fund anything beyond knock-off Dr. Seuss books. I’ll keep an eye out for your forthcoming 3 Fish 4 Fish, Green Sam I Am.
Do you really think the people doing these studies are the ones that will make money from alternative fuel? Jeez, here I am asking you questions and expecting rational, nonbiased responses. In any case, I already provided a more in-depth comment farther down the thread.
TinCan: WOW! Aren’t you a lil spitfvck. I would gladly give you a list of studies I’ve funded (through my program), but unfortunately I’d have to kill you then!!! Actually no, it’s just business sensitive.
Also yes I do believe the people doing the study will benefit from more funding. That’s like asking would Frod benefit from selling more Mustangs? Really maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand the business sense of scientifc studies. As soon as you realize that studies are a business, you may realize to see the bias in them already. Notice I’m saying this about ALL studies. “You don’t help yourself by coming to a conclusion in a study that deosn’t call for more study.” (A direct quote from one of the guys working at a lab doing a study).
Ford has a vested interest in selling more vehicles. What is the vested interest for climate scientists?
AStonishing: REALLY? The whole more money to keep employeed aspect? Anyone? Anyone here? Scientists make a living off of studies and experiments. If they are not doing studies or experiments then there is no income (unless they’re brainwashing today’s youth on college campuses, yes I went there). SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, do you need me to spell it out more, or do you get it now?
Sorry, but I won’t buy your bridge.
Also, read this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars
Again, though, that is why the publishing of true scientific studies conform to standards that disclose not just the conclusions, but also the methods of the investigation AND the individuals performing the study along with their affiliations. When this is done, their peers and everyone else can review both their work, their conclusions, and the “money trail.” Please, though, read this comment. I’m interested in your reply.
http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/03/25/political-pictures-republican-food-shelf/comment-page-1/#comment-489419
The first was a symposium, not a study. It was basically a conference of anthropoligists that met “to consider the mythology, ethnology, ecology, biogeography, physiology, psychology, history and sociology of the subject.” From the same wiki article, few accepted the existance, but none could find reason to dismiss all evidence.
One the second source, this is from the amazon synopsis: “Where Bigfoot Walks is concerned less with the existence of Bigfoot than with the nature of human belief, particularly the need to believe that something beyond what we rationally know is ‘out there.’” It appears to more of a travelogue about a geographical area known as the Dark Divide.
The third is an essay (not a study) about why we should believe in Sasquatch citing anecdotal evidence.
The fourth one definitely looks interesting. I’ll have to check that out.
All of that aside. Notice how your “studies” are titled things like, “Why there has to be a sasquatch,” and “The Apes Among Us,” while climate studies (you know, real science) have cute names like, “Solar influence on climate during the past millenium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate Simulation Model,” and “Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions.” We need to work on your definition of “study.”
Wow! That is chock full of typos. Sorry everyone.
I’ll accept your apology when you prove that manbearpig doesn’t exist
I can. He’s Half man, half pig, half bear, so there’s 150% of him. 150% of a person can not exist (unless it’s Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore due to their incredible sizes).
Come on, be cereal!
Excuse me?! He’s half bear half man-pig, you can’t explain that. Thank you for the non-partisan equivalence of 150% however!
My definition of “study” is what they use in Websters. I think that you and Mr. Astonishing DF are missing is that really studies are a piss poor way of trying to force a belief down people’s throats. I deal with engineering studies on a daily basis, and no that no one study can stand alone AND that most studies are started with a bias and or gaol to achieve in mind, and rarely “derail” from that, and it takes an outside source (me) to show the faults int eh study.
No. I think what you are missing is that an essay is not a study. An essay is a writing that supports one or another contention. A study is the documentation of a scientific investigation.
An essay could be a study. A study can be presented in essay form.
No, an essay can be presented in essay form. Publications of scientific studies conform to strict layouts: Abstract, Intro, Methods, Results, Discussion, Citations.
Grrrr…… FU WordPress!! Stop eating my posts. Let’s try this again.
An essay is an essay. It may reference studies, but it is an essay. A scientific study, on the other hand, conforms to a standard format, that being the inclusion of an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, & literature cited. When you lay out the process and results like that, other people can review your work.
You keep throwing climategate around like you have any clue what it was. If you did ten minutes of actual reading on the subject from non-biased sites, you would understand several things, not least of which is this: CRU, the institute involved in the “scandal,” is only one of the many institutions out there studying climate change. Even if their work was impugned, it does nothing to negate the work of the other thousands of research teams around the world.
Because you won’t take the time to actually read the emails to see what they say, here’s a link to a nonpartisan site that examined the issue. The article was written prior to the end of the investigations mentioned within, but those investigations found that accusations of evidence tampering were false and that the main issue was the institute wasn’t replying properly to FOI requests. That and they were rude, smug pr!cks. I’ve never met someone with a PhD who wasn’t.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
“When you decide to question them…” That’s the whole point of science! Don’t you understand? That’s why we look for scientists to publish openly and freely; so we can read their work, and then read the responses from their peers, and then read the responses to them! That is how science works. Sometimes things we thought we knew and which were supported by data are wrong. It happens all the time. But we’re talking individual studies.
When the overwhelming majority of studies show that human activities are contributing to a natural warming trend (you keep bringing that up as if scientists aren’t smart enough to take that into consideration), even if a small percentage of studies end up drawing incorrect conclusions, the overall conclusion remains the same: the earth is warming and humans are a factor. Only the nuances change.
And back to that natural warming trend. If we know the earth is warming anyway, why wouldn’t we want to limit our output of the substances that are causing the natural warming?
I’m sorry I put so much time into this. There is little chance you’ll end up seeing it and I would like to see what you have to say. If you ever come across it and decide to respond, look up my account and message me so I can come back to it.
You’re right, an essay can be the conclusion part of a study.
I love how you assume that I don’t do any reading and just flaunt horse$hit out there. Just b/c I didn’t come to the same conclusion as you on information, doesn’t mean I didn’t read it, it means I interpretted it differently. And no I don’t think the “unbias’d” investigation is 100% accurate b/c it assumes the intent of a person. Present the facts, AND let people make up their minds on the intent. The only person who knows for 100% certainty what the intent was, is the writer of the emails.
I know how science works, thanks. But when the peers who “disagree” with the “consensus” are actually ridiculed and bullied then I find that people’s “facts” are based in reality. The studies, I’ve read some, actually don’t prove man-made climate change. They take a bunch of circumstancial evidence and twist it into a belief. (I know I’m oversimplifying it with this next part), it’s the I love red. Roses are red. Therefore I love roses. train of thought.
I love the, “well if it isn’t proven, BUT thousands of studies that prove it (wait you just said it was never proven) then what do we have to lose by just adhereing to it?” attitude. It’s the, “Just in CASE” attitude of willing to hand over more power to the government, b/c they can ensure the Environment is SAFE! It’s that “Just in Case” attitude why you can’t wear your shoes in airport screenings, it’s that “Just in Case” why a grown man can feel you up freely all for buying a plane ticket, it’s the “Just in Case” attitude that some people tried to implement with warranless wire taps… “just in Case” is not justicfication, it’s a what if… Well what IF climate change is not done by man, but a natural phenomenon, and we can’t stop nor change it? WHAT IF Sarah Palin wins the 2012 Presidential Election? WHAT IF Bigfoot is really real?
“But when the peers who ‘disagree’ with the ‘consensus’ are actually ridiculed and bullied”
[citation needed]
Astonishing: Are you so forgetful that you can’t even remember when JAC pwned you on this subject? Or did you intern your own new reality again?
JAC, yo JAC, help here, PLEASE!!!
I don’t remember JAC “pwning” me on anything. And I don’t read JAC’s posts anymore.
I was only assuming you hadn’t read them because you kept inferring that “Climategate” completely obliterated the scientific support of man-made contributions to global warming. Again, as I pointed out, it did no such thing. An *objective* reading of the topic shows this. You can also read the actual emails, if you care to. They also don’t show any signs of evidence tampering.
I also didn’t say “prove” anywhere. In fact, I’m the one that started this conversation by saying that science supports the theory that human actions contribute to climate change but that nothing proves it. I’m sure I can find many studies that don’t show a correlation between our activities and the warming trend. However, and this is a big one, for everyone 1 that doesn’t support the theory, there are 25 that do (probably not the real ratio, but I’ll be it’s close).
Here’s my basic premise to what you write off as “what if.” There is natural climate change. We know it has occurred throughout history. We know that certain natural events accelerate these changes sometimes, and we know how those events cause the changes (for the most part). We also know that the humans produce many of the same chemicals, pollutions, and gases that occur in nature and lead to those changes. If a combination of XYZ in nature causes the climate to change, then what happens when you double XYZ due to human actions. In other words, if XYZ=N Degrees of Climate Change, what does 2XYZ equal?
Beyond all that, the solutions proposed by the “green” crowd will improve air quality, make water cleaner, and improve overall health, safety, and possibly provide economic stimulus through the growth of “green jobs. Even if climate change wasn’t a factor, why would you be opposed to those thing?
Equating the climate change debate to airport security is ridiculous. Where are the studies that show increased airport security reduces terrorist threats? Where is the empirical data that the TSA increases our safety? You can’t equate the two no matter how hard you try.
I don’t buy that the “green” crowd will help jump start the economy by making products 15% more expensive. Much of the “green technology” is not mature enough to replace our current energy producing plants today (ie engines, power plants, industry, etc..) I’m for helping things along (yes I agree with not dumping dangerous chemicals striaght into the rivers and lakes, I understand a need for some of the EPA requirements, however I AM NOT for a complete and utter overhaul overnight, and based off of studies. We need proof. Until we’re able to put GPS tags on Carbon Molecules and trace it into a point that has caused climate change, HOW can we be 100% certain. How many times in science have you simulated or run calculations prior to an experiment? And out of all those experiments how many times did the experiment match within proximity to your calc or models?
You talk to XYZ gas into the air that nature does as well, but you didn’t talk rates, or how quickly those gases are absorbed. If we really look at significant CLimate changes in the history of the earth it was done due to cataclysmic sized events. Super Valcanoes, Asteroids, etc…. not a “slow” build up.
My biggest heart burn with this whole “green” movement is that every “fix” brings a new set of problems. High Efficiency Bulbs (oh wait mercury), Hybrid Cars (oh wait hazardous materials in the batteries), Recycling (oh wait higher carbon footprint to recycle the plastic than it is to create it), Ethanol (oh wait burns cleaner, but now we need to use more land to grow corn, and more chemicals and carbon footprint to harvest the corn)….
^This. Please point out those studies, ILPB. I’ve a keen interest in cryptozoology and would love to brush up on my Sasquatch lore.
You’re a lil late.
Just a ‘lil!
Actually Republicans give more money to charities that actually help people ( and for government ones that largely dont — forced because they pay more taxes than libtaarddds)
Libtaards create stupid lying captioned pictures and conservatives actually help people instead.
That’s because conservatives have very little imagination or creativity, which is required to create witty, spot-on captions.
Yes, but the people they are trying to help are the top 3% income folks.
SO, how much have you given lately?
You mean coming here and calling all of us “libtaards” doesn’t count as charity?
It should be since I feel I should be paid just to read his comments.
Republicans donate to charities that give starving children bibles instead of meals. That doesn’t really so much help them eat as keep warm by a quick burning paper-fueled fire for about 7 minutes. More if they get together with other kids who were “helped”
I give a lot of money to Charity! She does give a fine (and surprisingly permissive!) lap dance.
That or the charity only helps those who convert. In either of those cases it’s not charity.
From the article at The American, linked above:
“For example, in 2000, religious people were 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household, even after correcting for income differences.”
So.
I find it wonderful that people donate, but, I’m not going to take these studies to heart.
Hold the phone. Did you not just Support Tin Can who was beotching that people don’t take “man made” climate change seriously b/c it’s only based on studies? So we get to pick and choose our studies now?
Is that people giving to church such as tithing…or people giving explicitly for charity?
How do I know I wasn’t asking that. Nest appropriately please.
Well, with man-made climate change, we have corroborating studies. A single study might or might not be legitimate. So, I was asking for corroboration, mostly, but I was also asking for full data. From anyone who wants to provide it.
I was neither supporting nor denying the studies I was just simply pointing out the attitude that is way too common in the world…. if the study proves my point it’s A OK! if it is against my idealogues, then I’ll ignore it, b/c it’s just a study.
To me, if there’s corroboration and the full data is provided, even if it’s against me, I’ll believe it.
Studies are a good way to find out facts. The more the studies agree with each other, the more the facts are validated. In your case, your study may or may not be legit, but is most likely legit.
Oh I agree to a point. However I don’t think studies find out “facts” as thought. Science finds out facts. In the eyes of the world if it can’t be proven, then how can it be true. It’s the same thing angry liberal atheist scream at gullable christians. PROVE to me there is a GOD! But when someone asks proof for their “study”, then by all means let’s back talk and not nut up.
I believe part of that attitude is that they cannot believe in something that lacks any sort of empirical proof as to it’s existence. Since belief in God is more a matter of faith than evidence, this would hypothetically put the onus on the believers to prove their claims, with the ‘prove to me their isn’t a God’ argument viewed as a poor argument.
While I have no problem with this line of thinking in and of itself, I still have a problem with people who act like they’re smarter/better than religious folks because of their lack of belief. It’s about as self-righteous as the hard-core believers who think their religion puts them on a moral high ground.
I think both sides have the high horse a-holes.
But it’s not the “prove to me God doesn’t exist” I was talking to, but Prove to me that climate change is man made AND not part of the natural cycle of the earth? I mean we did have an Ice Age prior to man, we had a mini-ice age prior to Industrialization, we’ve had significant climate change prior to man having any impact, but people with their high horse will “prove” through studies that “everyone” believes they are right. And God forbid you show a list of credable people who DON’T believe as they do, they shout and pout and say it’s only a few.
I don’t think that showing a list of people who deny the existence is really going to convince me that we shouldn’t do the things that will improve our quality of life and our environmental impact anyways. I think that most of the things called for in the course of handling climate change are necessary whether the changes are due to human impact, a combination of the course of nature and human impact, or entirely natural.
Actually Republicans give more money to charities that actually help people ( and for government ones that largely dont — forced because they pay more taxes than libtaarddds)
Libtaards create stupid lying captioned pictures and conservatives actually help people instead.
Meanwhile being whispered in Obama-villes all over America ::::
America is “led by a president who increasingly makes Jimmy Carter look like General Patton” …
You said that, literally right above this comment. Me thinketh you’ve had too much to drink.
Repetitive tr0ll is repetitive. He posted that last sentence twice on the Wannabe lol too.
Maybe he thinks if he says it enough people will take it seriously?
That strategy has worked disturbingly well in recent years.
it’s the old Stalin Big Lie strategy . . . say a big lie loud enough and often enough . . . and people will believe it.
example: “Let the rich have their deep tax cuts because they will use the money to create jobs.”
the rich have had those tax cuts for about ten years now, and there are fewer jobs today than there were before they got those cuts. despite this glaring and harsh reality, people still think tax cuts for the super-rich will create jobs.
In my hometown they had to shut down an annual job fair because there weren’t enough jobs.
Huh. Here, we just held a networking event that was literally standing-room only.
Then again, I live where it’s kinda purple, and even the Democrats are gun-clingers who like low taxes and high development rates.
Yeah, my home state is a red state, and I’m living in Ohio right now, where there is jack all for anyone. I doubt there’s even the 1 in 5 ratio.
Western Pennsylvania, here. My county gets a lot of the “urban flight” from good ol’ mismanaged Pittsburgh, and we seem to be coming through the ‘crisis’ pretty well, all things considered.
It probably helps that a lot of gas companies working the Marcellus shale have moved their HQ’s here.
Yeah, we’re totally screwed, and now we have Kasich, who is I believe trying to make it so that only wealthy people can survive in this state. We already have to pay taxes for living in a county and for working in a county (respectively). It’s getting insane and really sad. Now he’s cutting schools (which is why everyone pays per county) and trying to oust the unions. I’m really getting scared.
I’m curious if asking government employees to pay the same 20% of their healthcare costs as everybody else (instead of the 9% they pay now) is really “going after” them.
I mean, I keep hearing how BAD teachers have it… but my parents both taught school, both retired in their early 50′s, and are living quite comfortably. Most “normal” folks I know are hoping they’ll be okay to retire at 65, but they probably won’t.
There’s considerable disconnect between what I’m being told by some folks and what I actually see.
That was my thing, too… It was mentioned on another lol the average teacher’s salary. It was strikingly similar to what I’m making right now… Working 12 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s including all the extra money I’m getting for being away from home and being shot at.
Does that include the necessary education requirements for a teacher?
Funny you should mention that since I put my soon-to-be ex-wife through school to become a teacher on this same salary. So, if I can do that, pay a mortgage, car payments on an SUV and full-sized pick-up, support four children and a wife, and pay every bill on the same they make… Doesn’t sound like they’re doing QUITE as bad as some people like to make it seem. Don’t forget that I also usually make LESS than this when not deployed.
“Does that include the necessary education requirements for a teacher?”
Do you even know what those are?
Here’s a hint… in grad school, I decided I might want to be a school librarian. They have to be fully certified as teachers.
So I took all the classes I needed to take to get accredited.
It took all of 1 semester, except for student teaching. Which also would have taken a semester, had I gone through with it.
Slag: Do you even know what you’re talking about?
pratrp: I didn’t say it was dishwasher bad.
That wasn’t exactly what I was talking about. He’s trying to do away with unions, including those of police officers and fire fighters. Yes, teachers DO have it bad. Maybe not worse than the impoverished, but I’ve never met a teacher who could be considered to be doing more than surviving if they were living on their own. I don’t think that any government workers should have their voices taken away, especially with the bait and switch tactics that Kasich is taking with the budget these days.
http://www.examiner.com/government-in-columbus/is-gov-kasich-using-two-sets-of-books-critic-says-put-the-numbers-out-there
“I’ve never met a teacher who could be considered to be doing more than surviving if they were living on their own.”
How does that work if I can support six on the same (usually less)?
Perhaps it’s not so much a “not getting paid enough” problem as it is a “living beyond means” problem..
This just in: Cost of living is identical in every state and region in the United States.
(Yes, this is condescending.)
I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but now you have to have a Master’s degree in order to become a teacher in many states. The ones that don’t require this are paying teachers about 30-50K a year with a Bachelor’s degree. All teachers have to acquire CEU’s every year as well (most of the time paid for out of pocket). They also wind up providing supplies to more thoroughly educate their students that would otherwise be unavailable due to funding. I’ve been over all of this before. I’m not saying that they are POOR, per se, but they do a lot of work for little credit and for less pay than an executive or even a Congressman would expect for the kind of work that they are doing, they are also providing a vital service to the public, that is gradually being degenerated. Everyone talks about how much money schools are getting, but I seriously see things getting worse in them, all of the funding for special programs is being cut, in my state, if I want to send my kid to an out of district school I have to PAY for her to go to public school…$450 a month! Even though right now I’m paying taxes for that district! Because of the annexation of surrounding areas, what happens is one city gets the children for school, and the other area gets the taxes for education….it’s completely screwed up.
1. Oddly enough, people in my profession make just about the same amount no matter what state they live in.
2. Bet you also don’t know that I am on the HIGHER end of the spectrum for salaries for my job. (Hint: That means there are a lot of people that make LESS than I do and survive).
Just because you continue to say the same BS over and over again doesn’t make you any smarter than anyone else. You’ll never budge no matter what real world facts are put in front of you, though. Lucky for me it’s dinner time. As such, I gracefully bow out and tell you all to have a good day.
o_O I wasn’t trying to inspire a debate, I mainly wanted to vent my p!ssed-offedness @ our new governor. I voted for the old one in spite of his sh!tness, because I knew that Kasich was going to try and screw us even more than we’re already being screwed.
Who you talkin’ to pratrp?
I have a Master’s degree, and I started the job I have now at 29K. (I make 36K now).
If I make 50K a year, I would consider myself “rich” compared to what I am used to.
Of course, right now, I own my own small house, drive a used Lincoln Continental, and mostly support my disabled fiancee (She gets 700 a month from SSI, which just about covers her personal expenses – I pay all utilities.)
Granted, I don’t have a lot of savings, but I also buy supplemental health insurance and have a fixed-rate mortgage. When that’s paid off in a few more years, I will be rather well-off for a one-income person.
I don’t know any teachers who are NOT more well-off than I am, except for a couple who have some really bad habits.
Cost-of-living DOES vary from place to place, of course… which is one reason why a rural district shouldn’t have to pay their teachers the same as a big city where the CoL is 3 times as much.
Why CAN’T localities negotiate their own more cost-effective deals? (That’s one of the changes in collective bargaining people seem to be protesting a lot.)
Localities CAN and DO do that already. Unfortunately, you need funding at a state and federal level in order to carry out a lot of the decisions made at a local level. I don’t understand why lobbyists are still allowed to do what they do, but union workers are demonized for wanting to be able to address the issues with their jobs. Taking it away their voice is NOT helping anyone, except maybe in that they can start doing whatever they heck they want with teachers and police and firemen. Pretty soon all of it will wind up being privatized (at this rate). The point of keeping unions is so that teachers can KEEP what they already have, and address issues as they come up. It’s not an issue of them making demands on the people to give what they don’t have, except perhaps in that they’re wanting what they need to do their jobs and there isn’t enough to fulfill that need.
“Unfortunately, you need funding at a state and federal level in order to carry out a lot of the decisions made at a local level.”
How’s that? You make a local decision, you raise the money locally. If you can’t raise it locally, you make a different decision. (Not buying new lights for the stadium and new equipment for the football team when your science texts are 20 years outdated might be a good start.)
I described the annexation situation around here. It’s completely inefficient and would leave a lot of districts without proper funding for the students that they are taking on. It also seems like the poorer areas are being annexed to pay for the schools in areas more middle and upper class.
So, can you set your tap water on fire yet?
That was just scary to see.
“Actually Republicans give more money to charities that actually help people ( and for government ones that largely dont — forced because they pay more taxes than libtaarddds).” If this is true, you should have no problem proving it.
Kiwi hun, that’s the Old Megasock, he never backs up his claims.
Just laugh at him.
Ok Squiggly.
The liberal ideal of a food shelf is out of anyone else’s wallet but their own.
All along screaming make the rich pay their fair share. Yeah, well, when it comes right down to it.. no one wants to pay their fair share, especially liberals. Hell, they cannot even understand the word fair let alone define it and apply it to themselves like they want to force it on anyone they think it should apply to… everyone but themselves.
If liberals actually put as much of THEIR own personal money where their mouths are… this world would have NO problems.
You’re right, Storm. Liberals NEVER contribute their money to charity.
Uh huh, and conservatives are paragons of the virtue of fairness.
There are no paragons, but I’ve found that the least-paragonny are usually the people who shout loudest about being so.
Agreed with you there. The people that are the least giving are usually the loudest about it the few times they do.
Actually right wingers give far more to charity…
…in several studies that count any giving to religious organizations as “charity”.
Been to vatican city lately? Give to the poor…..
But whose bureaucracy is more bloated?
The Vogons.
Nerd win!
You would know that better than the rest of us.
Very true. And before somebody tries to pin “They only do it for a tax-write off” on it… the POOREST state (Mississippi) gives the most. Heck, most of the south gives more than the blue states and while they are “Red states”, they don’t tend to be the states with rich tycoons… Those would be the blue states.
Wonder where this whole “Republicans are for the rich and hate the poor” BS started…
It’s because of the Republican stance on issues, and because of wealthy Republicans. I’ve noticed that people who have experience with poverty are more generous when they have any finances, I have yet to see Donald Trump do anything for ANYONE besides his buddies, and there are many more like him. There are also people like Bill Gates out there who actually do take an active part in improving the country and the world. I am still as of yet uncomprehending of the Republican bias of poor red states, it makes NO SENSE, and most of the people who are Republicans in those states have been poor before and have family and friends who are poor, so I get very confused at their ignorance on these issues.
The Republican view isn’t ‘We hate poor people’, it’s more “We don’t trust big government” and that includes taking care of the poor. If I can give a buck to the government to help take care of the government or give the same buck to a private charity to do the same, the private charity will do a far better job, and have better results. To me it seems like Democrats don’t want to give, and assume everybody doesn’t want to give… and force others to give as the ‘only way to deal with the problem’. They get the money (use some to line their own pockets as “overhead” and “administration fees”) and then assume everything is done.
That’s the big side of Republicans that fit the south very well. Don’t put your faith in a government far far away, keep those responsible for the laws that effect you the most as close to you as possible.
I’d say that both you and bolero’s statements contain elements of truth to them. We have to find ways of helping the very poor, but we can’t do this if we ignore the problem and/or simply throw money at it. There has to be more to the solution than that.
Yeah, that’s why when I go to a food pantry, they supposedly “feed you for a month” but really it is supplemental and feeds you for a week. Now imagine if there were a lot more people requiring the services of a food pantry, and then tell me that it would improve things. It won’t. Charities DO NOT do better than a government organization, but they DO help fill in a few gaps in the system.
wth?! I replied! Why is this down here?!
Just blame Word Press being weird again.
I once had the cops called on me for dumspter diving. The manager said it was theft. Bastard. All I wanted was a pie to bring home as a treat to my girlfriend. I was going to shop inside all proper-like too afterwards. Sweaty little man, how I hate you.
You gotta love the “Rich Republicans” meme. How much do you think Nancy Pelosi is worth? Harry Reid? Barney Frank? The Clintons? Please. ALL politicians are wealthy, let’s not be intellectually dishonest here. (But then again I forget — without intellectual dishonesty, distorting the truth, and hysterical bleating your average Internet Liberal doesn’t have a leg to stand on.)
HEY perhaps we could go with most of the actors in Hollywood are liberals and tend to vote Democrat…. but I guess they ain’t rich. Or then there’s Ted Turner….
Yet strangely, more people end up doing this when Democrats are in charge… it’s purely a coincidence, I’ll wager. ha
[citation needed]
How about…lessee… 17% real unemployment?
half million layoffs/unemployment applications every month since 2008?
Nah, nearly coincidence…
I’m not allowed to tell why because people will start crying.
The Republicans aren’t evil – just sentimental. They miss the old Dickensian days and all the charm and cheek of the working class poor.
Guess this poster never got the memo on which groups are the most charitable.
taxation doesn’t count as charity.