Deception by Science

[joepistole]

You go on and on and on, like a true pontificator.
Although superficially plausible, in fact, Maslow's Hierarchy is a fraud.

I don't suppose you have any proof of same? Unlike "science" from your end of the political spectrum, Maslow's Hierarchy was based on research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Every day throughout human history, people have risked their very lives for some of the most trivial reasons conceivable. This is a complete repudiation of Need Hierarchy. Complete. Maslow CLAIMED that our first directive was to continue living. Uh huh. So why do people risk their lives for a hit of an opiate, often killing themselves in the process? They jump out of aircraft, and do stupid stunts risking, and taking, life and limb.

Maslow based his Hierarchy of Needs based on healthy individuals, not deviant individuals. Additionally, all of those people jumping out of aircraft have obvioulsy fullfilled their basic needs (e.g. have enough food, clothing and shelter, etc.). Last time I checked, homeless folk are not jumping out of aircraft. They cannot afford it because they are not able to cover their basic needs.

It is much more accurate to say that we are all prostitutes. We will do anything, include risking our lives, for the right price.

No it is much more accurate to say that you are ignoring inconvenient facts and reason.

Nota bene, Mister Powerful Moderator: You spoke on behalf of your wife.
You claimed she believed and would say thus and such. Men's opinions are worthless because they can't bear children. What utter nonsense.
Were any man to claim women's opinions on some issue are meaningless for some silly reason would be instantly derided as a "sexist." Yet your own sexism and that of your wife's doesn't seem to occur to you.

You either overlook or else neglect the fact that men are required to pay child support for eighteen years.
You either overlook or else neglect the fact that men too love their children, and can want to raise them, even if not married to the mother of the child.
But promoters of child butchery don't care about men's rights, just as they don't care about precious lives. Simply killing unborn babies is the objective, and no excuse is needed.

Anybody who supports abortion on demand, any time, for any reason, is truly sick.

Feel free to exert your Powerful Supreme Authority, Mister Storm Trooper.

It must give you a shiver down your varicose veined leg, as perhaps nothing else will.

You are misrepresenting the facts again. No one is advocating "child butchery". And the issue with respect to abortion is one of individual choice. Your side argues that the state should tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Pro Choice (abortion) individuals are arguing that it is the right of the individual to decide what they can and cannot do with their bodies, not the state.

 

[Darius Macab]

@ R-man

are you trying to set a world record for being banned?

as Albert Einstein once said: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"

 

[fedr808]

We can even go further to state that the secondary purpose of living is to improve life, whether its one's own, another's, a whole country, even the whole world.

That is why there are people that take drugs, people that jump out of planes. We live to improve life, there is no definition for how to improve one's life because different people do it in different ways.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

I don't know....
There's nothing looks quite so ridiculous as someone who is sure they have 'the facts' when what they have is an ignorant uninformed set of beliefs and an agenda.

1. The "agenda" is anti-science, prattled by tens of thousands of hypocrites who have their snouts buried so deeply in the trough of government grants that they are deaf and blind to anything outside of the Al Gore Fantasy of Global Warming.

Then equating abortion with murder of 'babies' has to be the ultimate ignorance. Is one saying a fetus is a baby? Aren't babies the result of a successful pregnancy and can't a lot of things go wrong during pregnancy?

The most common of which would be abortion, the chemical or mechanical butchery of a developing human being.



http://abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_3.html

Your pretense that a developing human being is not a developing human being is countered by findings in United States courts of law where men have been convicted of murdering unborn babies. Scott Petersen sits on death row for murdering his wife, Stacey, and his unborn son, Conner, not that you give a ****.

 

[spidergoat]

Wow, government grants! Those sure are a pile of pennies compared to the oil industry, which is making greater profit than any human enterprise since the beginning of industrial civilization.

 

[fedr808]

Ten thousand scientists say one thing but I am sure glad to get the real truth from an Internet forum.

praise the lord we've seen the light

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Thank Dawkins you are back RM!
There has been such a lack of insanity, rampant paranoia, and barely concealed latent homosexuality since you left that the place wa starting to get boring.


thanks for coming back to entertain us


To say thanks for bringing the lulz back I have some polaroids of Ted Haggard and George W Bush posing together in assless chaps, which I know would be right up your street

 

[spidergoat]

Wow, R-man and EmptyChi at the same time, be careful what you wish for!!!

 

[Believe]

At first glance, the following graph may appear to be reasonable, rational, scientific, and informative. It is also terribly misleading, and intentionally so.

The entire range spans only 70 parts per million. Why? Because those who promote it have an ax to grind, about which more later.

I will reduce the scale to include the zero baseline.

Unfortunately this entire increase in carbon dioxide concentration is implicitly assumed to be anthropogenic, or man-made wherever the graph is displayed, to the gasps of frightened audiences.

Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide is estimated at only ~3.4% of the total,
that component would be shown as increasing from 11 ppm to 13 ppm, seen here:

To be concluded in following post.

Your own graphs are an example of what you are rallying against in your post. What you need to make your point valid is data on how the actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the temperature, preferably in the form of degrees/ppm.

I can make a giant graph of how many bullets in the head it takes to kill someone and take the scale from 1-1000, the fact will still remain that it only takes one. They probably chose the scale they chose because the concentrations are relevant at that scale.

 

[Darius Macab]

i shall be using the above quote for reference

as has been said before the science of this graph is valid, because science is the interpretation of data and the data in this case is sound as it has been corroborated by several different authorities

as Believe said the graph is not misleading, anyone who passed eight year math can read this properly and draw the correct conclusions from it.

you obviously cannot.

government grants are a drop in the bucket compared to so many other things most governments pay out and get in including defense budgets, election campaigns and taxes on the oil industry.

Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide is estimated at only ~3.4% of the total

sure, but it only takes 2-4% change to wreak massive changes in the environment and climate. im not sure were you live but in Vancouver (Canada) the last 3-4 years have all set a recorded history record for something (temperature, rainfall, lack therof).

oh and it doesn't matter if humans are increasing carbon dioxide or not what matters is that it is increasing and soon the homes of 3 billion will be under water.

jeez, can somebody please just ban him permanently. the reason i hardly post on this forum is because of the assholes like him.

 

[chimpkin]

Above 500 ppm is where we're in trouble...and we're @ 392 ppm now.


We keep having record highs, record lows, record droughts and record floods here, so we're shaking AND baking.
BTW, nobody seems to be noting that no-till agriculture does a couple of really important things: increases drought resistance of plants grown thus, and increases soil carbon retention.

"If every farmer who grows crops in the United States would use no-till and adopt management practices such as crop rotation and planting cover crops, we could sequester about 300 million tons of soil carbon each year,"

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/notill.htm

 

[Darius Macab]

Above 500 ppm is where we're in trouble...and we're @ 392 ppm now.


We keep having record highs, record lows, record droughts and record floods here, so we're shaking AND baking.
BTW, nobody seems to be noting that no-till agriculture does a couple of really important things: increases drought resistance of plants grown thus, and increases soil carbon retention.



http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/notill.htm

couldn't have said it better

DM

 

[charles brough]

For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

I fail to see what economic interests could be FOR this "scam" when the total economic interests that are threatened by it are immense. I know the social sciences are losing objectivity, but I find it hard to believe that the physic's science of phyics consenses has been corrupted.

Myself, I am still not convinced one way or the other.

brough
civilization-overview.com