re: #654 reason0911

Art Robinson is a first class kook. See:

The GOP’s Newest Star: Far Crazier Than Rand Paul
GOP Candidate Arthur Robinson: Dump Oil and Nuclear Waste at Sea
Arthur Robinson sells racist book suggesting Africans are like “retarded children”

re: #653 Tigger2005

haha. this is funny. he’s calling NJD’s opinions ignorant. I wonder how informed his opinions are. Listen, you are choosing to believe what one group of people says. That’s all your doing. I’m almost certain you haven’t done the research necessary to come to an informed conclusion. You’re probably not a scientist. Yet you’d call out someone else for not believing in the same thing as you. I imagine scientists have better things to do than call people names on little websites. One should always remain a skeptic of all second hand information.

re: #655 Charles

“Baloney” is hardly an acceptable counter argument to his claims. I haven’t heard your scientific arguments against his theories. Please present them. I like to come to informed conclusions, so make sure you study up and be as comprehensive as possible.

re: #657 reason0911

“Baloney” is hardly an acceptable counter argument to his claims. I haven’t heard your scientific arguments against his theories. Please present them. I like to come to informed conclusions, so make sure you study up and be as comprehensive as possible.

Image: facepalm.jpg

re: #658 Charles

Sorry. I don’t click on links. You can express your ideas here on this page though.

re: #656 reason0911

One should always remain a skeptic of all second hand information.

So you ‘remain skeptical’ of every scientific fact you haven’t personally done empirical verification of?

re: #660 Obdicut

I remain open to new ideas and information. It’s the key to progress.

re: #660 Obdicut

and I’m a true progressive

re: #659 reason0911

Sorry. I don’t click on links.

Really? How in the world do you use the Internet then?

re: #661 reason0911

I remain open to new ideas and information. It’s the key to progress.

Hey, so am I…but Art Robinson was merely spouting conspiracy theory. As far as the physics go, he says we can spray radioactive waste around the planet and dispose of it safely that way, since small levels of radiation are not harmful. As someone who was treated with radiation, once, I can assure you that even in tiny, tiny doses that shit is poison.

re: #661 reason0911

I remain open to new ideas and information. It’s the key to progress.

Could you answer my straightforward question, please?

Do you accept any scientific facts that you haven’t personally empirically verified?

Or are you skeptical of every bit of science you haven’t proved to yourself in empirical tests?

re: #661 reason0911

I remain open to new ideas and information.

As long as it can be done without clicking any of those link things.

and in any case, scientific “facts” are always changing and with the rapid technological changes taking place, I imagine we’ll be able to better test the validity of our past conclusions and our future hypothesis. As the doctor stated, 15 years ago the debate was different. Factors were unknown about HIV and Aids. Today there are factors that are unknown. There is much debate about testing for HIV. The standards change from country to country. The markers accepted for the diagnosis of HIV are different from one country to the next. You could be classified as having in one country and not having it in another. Certainly that leaves a bit of uncertainty, and leaves the discussion open to different theories. Wouldn’t you agree?

re: #667 reason0911

Different theories as to what, exactly?

re: #664 darthstar

I need more than your assurances and anecdotal evidence. I need the scientific data which I’m sure you have since you’ve reached this conclusion already.

re: #665 Obdicut

That was a straightforward answer. There are things that I accept because generally speaking more informed people than I have come to those conclusions and have seemingly done the leg work. However since I don’t have first hand knowledge, it would be foolhardy of me to scorn those who present new theories without fully exploring them.

re: #669 reason0911

I need more than your assurances and anecdotal evidence. I need the scientific data which I’m sure you have since you’ve reached this conclusion already.

Of course, you won’t click on any link that would provide you with said evidence.

re: #671 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

simple solution; type in the web address dear friend.

re: #663 Charles

you’re right. I misspoke. I rarely click on links of unknown origin. I try to avoid viruses.

re: #669 reason0911

I need more than your assurances and anecdotal evidence. I need the scientific data which I’m sure you have since you’ve reached this conclusion already.

It’s out there for you to read. Sadly, however, it requires you to move your mouse over some colored text until the little finger icon appears, and then, with a steady hand and a strong heart, actually click on said text. In the reasonable world (where people don’t name themselves after terror-attacks), these things are called links, and people click them to learn more information…or to be entertained, either by porn or people like yourself.

lre: #674 darthstar

lol. that’s my daughters birthday. Other things happened that day.

I love this breed of troll.

re: #672 reason0911

simple solution; type in the web address dear friend.

Ah yes, I’ll spend my time typing out web addresses because you’re too lazy and paranoid. Splendid idea, I’ll jump right on that.

re: #673 reason0911

you’re right. I misspoke. I rarely click on links of unknown origin. I try to avoid viruses.

Do you wear a condom while you surf the web? Seriously, anyone with a fifth grade education these days knows that if you mouse over a link you can read the URL, or right click and select “Properties” to see where it goes. I’m afraid of viruses! Get the fuck off of Internet Explorer then, and you’ll be fine.

re: #670 reason0911

Actually, the cool thing about science is that when theories are established, it provides an easy way to test new theories. New theories can be easily first tested against things that are known to be true, and, if they mesh with that, then they can be tested to see if the new theories provide better predictive or explanatory results than current theories. If they do, then they’re accepted as the better theory; if they’re somewhere in the ballpark, they’re accepted as one of the competing theories on the subject.

You don’t start from zero on every new theory, at all. Your view has nothing to do with the Western tradition of science.

re: #676 Charles

troll? I’m not sure what you mean by that. I am an individual who disagrees with many of the comments posted here in relation to this blog post. I decided to voice that disagreement, in what I hope was a reasonable way. Name calling isn’t necessary.

re: #678 darthstar

You must be the brains of this operation.

No need to be so hostile. I haven’t insulted you…yet.

re: #679 Obdicut

I agree and that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that whenever new information is available, it must be considered. I’m saying that all arguments and the evidence must be considered. If one hasn’t seriously considered all the arguments, one shouldn’t berate those that come to different conclusions>

re: #681 reason0911

You must be the brains of this operation.

No need to be so hostile. I haven’t insulted you…yet.

You couldn’t insult me if you wanted to. And I wasn’t being hostile, I was simply mocking you. You claimed you’re afraid of viruses. This isn’t 1998 anymore. Viruses aren’t as easy to get…even on Windows. What, pray tell, do you do when you’re not trying to rationalize the arguments of people like Robinson? (Please tell me you’re not in IT)

re: #677 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No. You don’t have to. You are the one making a big deal of it. It’s a very small thing to me.

You did take the time, however, to type this message. I’d think you’d be more willing to take the time to support your conclusions. I guess I’ll just be left in the dark on this one.

re: #682 reason0911

I agree and that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that whenever new information is available, it must be considered. I’m saying that all arguments and the evidence must be considered. If one hasn’t seriously considered all the arguments, one shouldn’t berate those that come to different conclusions>

Not all arguments can be considered valid and some can be dismissed without serious consideration.

re: #683 darthstar

lol. no I’m not. that would be terrible for my client wouldn’t it, though I like to think I’m smart enough to learn anything that interests me.

re: #673 reason0911

you’re right. I misspoke. I rarely click on links of unknown origin. I try to avoid viruses.

I don’t believe viruses exist. Have you actually investigated for yourself the process by which viruses are created? If not, how can you claim to know that they exist, and why are you afraid of them? If you have done this important research, please explain to us how these viruses are supposed to work, in detail, with footnotes, or I’ll be forced to conclude that your claims of having a truly open mind are overblown and vapid.

re: #685 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You’re right, but when a scientist offers a hypothesis, I’m more inclined to consider it than the word of Rachel Maddow. On what grounds are you dismissing his arguments?

re: #685 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Not all arguments can be considered valid and some can be dismissed without serious consideration.

Well, except the argument that fossils were planted by Satan to fuck with our heads and make us doubt Jesus was a dino-jockey…everyone knows dinosaur bones age exponentially faster as time goes on, so 5,000 years looks like 5,000,000.

re: #688 reason0911

You’re right, but when a scientist offers a hypothesis, I’m more inclined to consider it than the word of Rachel Maddow. On what grounds are you dismissing his arguments?

Yes, but that fucking retard isn’t even a scientist…he’s a charlatan. (link is safe…it goes to [Link: www.m-w.com...] — Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, which is an electronic version of a book which contains words and their definitions, pronunciations, and often their origin).

re: #687 Charles

this is a non-sequitur. I have experienced the effects of viruses and until someone comes up with some other hypothesis about why my pc is on the fritz, I’ll have to assume they do exist. But if someone comes up with an alternate explanation to my computer problems, I’m certainly open to listening. This seems second nature…I’m really surprised by your response.

re: #691 reason0911

this is a non-sequitur. I have experienced the effects of viruses and until someone comes up with some other hypothesis about why my pc is on the fritz, I’ll have to assume they do exist. But if someone comes up with an alternate explanation to my computer problems, I’m certainly open to listening. This seems second nature…I’m really surprised by your response.

Could just be malware…you could have a bunch of invalid registry keys, so your system is constantly trying to resolve pointers to data which no longer exists on your hard drive…or maybe it’s time to trade in that 286 for a newer machine.

re: #690 darthstar

Hmm. I guess that depends on your definition of a scientists.

re: #688 reason0911

You’re right, but when a scientist offers a hypothesis, I’m more inclined to consider it than the word of Rachel Maddow. On what grounds are you dismissing his arguments?

His history of crack pot theories, his associations with hard core science deniers, and his backing of quack medical science.

re: #691 reason0911

Here’s an alternate theory: Rather than viruses, hackers are actively hacking into your computer and using remote access to do things on them. Rather than a program, it’s actual user agents doing it.

re: #667 reason0911

Bologna. And Arthur Robinson offers a poor excuse in that it was “15 years ago.” By 1995 a great deal was known about AIDs and HIV. HIV was discovered in 1984. The time line for 1995 alone includes:

* On February 8, FDA approved Mepron (atovaquone) for the treatment of mild to moderate Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in patients who are intolerant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX).
* On February 23, FDA revised the guidance for Home Specimen Collection Kit Systems Intended for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1 and/or HIV-2) Antibody Testing.
* On March 24, FDA cleared for marketing the first blood test to measure latex antibodies in the blood. The test can be used to help identify people who are allergic to latex and as such assist people in the use of barrier products to prevent HIV transmission.
* On April 14, FDA approved Chartex International plc. London, U.K. premarket approval application for the Femidom Female Condom. The product is an intravaginal barrier device and is indicated for use to help prevent pregnancy, which will be used as an indicator of the device’s performance in preventing STDs.
* In June 1995, FDA published “An FDA Guide To Choosing Medical Treatments,” FDA Consumer.
* In June 1995, FDA allowed the initiation of an open label study for saquinavir for the treatment of HIV infection and AIDS. Saquinavir, manufactured by Hoffmann-La Roche, is the first protease inhibitor made available outside of ongoing clinical trials.
* On June 6, FDA revised the blood donor criteria to exclude prisoners from donating blood, blood components and plasma for 12 months from the last date of incarceration.
* On June 11, FDA issued a Dear Healthcare Professional letter describing post marketing reports of new onset diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia or exacerbation of existing diabetes mellitus occurring in HIV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitor therapy, summarizing the reports, and encouraging health care providers to report such cases, or other serious toxicity associated with the use of protease inhibitors, to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
* On June 16, FDA approved Foscavir (foscarnet) for the treatment of acyclovir-resistant herpes simplex virus.
* August 1995, FDA recommended that blood establishments should implement donor screening for HIV-1 antigen using licensed test kits. Although, currently there are no tests for HIV-1 antigen(s) approved for donor screening, FDA issued the recommendation on HIV-1 in advance of the availability of such test in order to provide blood and plasma establishments with maximum time to prepare for this testing.
* On September 1, FDA authorized pre-approval distribution of intravenous cidofovir (Vistide) under a treatment IND protocol for HIV-infected persons relapsing cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis that has progressed despite treatment.
* On September 8, FDA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to amend its regulations pertaining to investigational new drug applications (INDs) and new drug applications (NDAs). The proposed rule is responsive to one of the recommendations made by the National Task Force on AIDS Drug Development. The proposed rule would clearly define in the NDA format and content requirements the need to present effectiveness and safety data for important demographic subgroups, specifically gender, age, and racial subgroups.
* On October 12, FDA approved Biaxin (clarithromycin) for the prevention of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC).
* On October 27, FDA granted marketing approval for Cytovene capsules (oral ganciclovir) as a prophylactic treatment for the prevention of HIV-related cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease.

Continues.

re: #693 reason0911

Hmm. I guess that depends on your definition of a scientists.

It’s “definition of scientists,” or “definition of a scientist.” Case matters.

re: #692 darthstar

I have a vaio. it’s fairly new, but my kids do download quite a bit on it. I’m going to have to take it to sony for some restoration.

Big guns rolling in. Ludwig is about to drop into this.

re: #695 Obdicut

Here’s an alternate theory: Rather than viruses, hackers are actively hacking into your computer and using remote access to do things on them. Rather than a program, it’s actual user agents doing it.

Ooh…that requires wrapping one’s entire body in tin-foil to stop.

re: #695 Obdre: #697 darthstar

lol.

re: #695 Obdicut

present your evidence.

re: #698 reason0911

I have a vaio. it’s fairly new, but my kids do download quite a bit on it. I’m going to have to take it to sony for some restoration.

Lesson #1 in keeping a machine healthy: Keep the fucking kids off of it. Buy them a desktop, get the wizards at Best Buy to set a parental filter for you, or create accounts without admin access for them so they can’t install shit, and you’ll be fine. Sorry, but your wounds are self-inflicted.

re: #702 reason0911

I’m sorry, can you answer if you feel this is a reasonable theory that you should spend your time investigating?

re: #696 Gus 802

this isn’t the science. to come to a conclusion about what the virus is and isn’t one can’t rely on a timeline. That isn’t helpful at all.

But honestly I think you’re losing my point. I’m not arguing for or against his ideas. I’m stating the absurdity of arguing against an idea you haven’t explored and don’t have the background to address in any serious way.

re: #667 reason0911
Ahh the trope about nothing being settled in science!

Let me ask you a question, is the Earth round or Flat? Is that settled science? Will that ever change with any new discoveries?

I wrote an detailed response to that here. Don’t worry, it is a link to this website – in a different place.

Pre Science lecture: Is anything ever settled in science?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #703 darthstar

I know!!! My daughter now has our old labtop. It’s going to make life easier for my computer. good advice and duly noted.

re: #706 LudwigVanQuixote

that seems quite settled and no one is arguing that it isn’t. this is also a non-sequitur.
btw, have you visited the tropes website. It’s pretty awesome.

Timeline: A Brief History of HIV/AIDS – AEGiS

1983

* CDC (U.S.) warns blood banks of a possible problem with the blood supply.

* Institut Pasteur (France) finds the virus (HIV).

* US President Ronald Reagan has not mentioned the word “AIDS” in public yet.

1984

* Dr. Robert Gallo (US) claims he discovered the virus that causes AIDS; however, this is about a year after the French discovery.

* US President Ronald Reagan has not mentioned the word “AIDS” in public yet.

1985

* The FDA (US) approves the first HIV antibody test. Blood products begin to be tested in the US and Japan.

* The first International Conference on AIDS is held in Atlanta (US).

* US President Ronald Reagan mentions the word “AIDS” in public for the first time in response to a reporters questions on September 17, 1985. See, also: Associated Press, Los Angeles Times

 

re: #708 reason0911

that seems quite settled and no one is arguing that it isn’t. this is also a non-sequitur.
btw, have you visited the tropes website. It’s pretty awesome.

Got a link?

re: #705 reason0911

this isn’t the science. to come to a conclusion about what the virus is and isn’t one can’t rely on a timeline. That isn’t helpful at all.

But honestly I think you’re losing my point. I’m not arguing for or against his ideas. I’m stating the absurdity of arguing against an idea you haven’t explored and don’t have the background to address in any serious way.

What hypothesis? This CRAP?

First, the arguments presented against the HIV hypothesis are sound, although they are difficult to independently evaluate. In part, they cite lack of evidence. Who has time to check this with a review of 77,000 papers? The burden of proof is on the HIV advocates – a burden they have not accepted in a forthright manner.

re: #708 reason0911

Actually, there are.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatea rthsociety.htm

You can just Google flat earth society if you don’t want to click on that link.

Do you need to consider their theories, or can you dismiss them a priori?

Or this CRAP?

Additional readings for the AIDS article in Access to Energy 22-3 are “The Longevity of Homosexuals Before and After the AIDS Epidemic,” by P. Cameron, W. L. Playfair, and S. Wellum, Omega Journal of Death and Dying 29, pp 249-272 (1994) and “AIDS: The Epidemic that Never Was,” New African, pp 8-11, December (1993).

Cameron, et al report research results showing that the median age at death for homosexual men dying of AIDS is 39 years and that for homosexual men who do not die of AIDS is 42. By comparison, the value for heterosexual married men is 75. This is evidence in support of the hypothesis that AIDS may be little more than a general classification of deaths resulting from exposure to homosexual behavior.

re: #688 reason0911

You’re right, but when a scientist offers a hypothesis, I’m more inclined to consider it than the word of Rachel Maddow. On what grounds are you dismissing his arguments?

Well, an hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess. One person’s hypothesis might turn out to be correct – or mostly correct – or at least the general picture. Of course most of them end up being wrong.

What matters is when the data rolls in and thousands of scientists corroborate an hypothesis by different avenues.

As to the AIDS virus, this is one of the most researched things in medical history. The budget that goes into dealing with it, is vastly larger than that of NASA for instance and has been for years. There are hundreds of thousands of cases on record and thousands of researchers who are actually in the field or a related field who study it – and have been studying it since the 80′s.

Now over all of them, you are interested in taking the word of a rude, proven fraud of a shamed scientist turned political hack.

Good show!

Step 1) Ask for evidence

Step 2) Ignore evidence when provided

Step 3) Complain

Step 4) Repeat

re: #708 reason0911

that seems quite settled and no one is arguing that it isn’t. this is also a non-sequitur.
btw, have you visited the tropes website. It’s pretty awesome.

No it is not a non-sequitor. It goes straight to the point of your misunderstanding. Things do get settled in science by a preponderance of evidence. HIV is the cause of AIDs. This is settled science.

re: #706 LudwigVanQuixote

I’m not arguing that we don’t accept the science available to us. I’m saying that dismissing a theory without exploration is absurd. You have no objective basis to come to a contrary conclusion. You’ve chosen either to believe or not to believe, but that hardly makes you right or puts you in a position to criticize those who haven’t come to the same belief as you.
It’s the same point I make with my Christian friend who’s always trying to save me. You believe in God and Jesus Christ. Good for you. You don’t know but you have faith. You recognize that it is a leap of faith yet you criticize me for not taking that same leap of faith without providing any evidence to support your claim. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m not in a position to…and nor is anyone on this thread that I can tell. Maybe there are some scientists here, but I doubt it.

re: #715 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Step 1) Ask for evidence

Step 2) Ignore evidence when provided

Step 3) Complain

Step 4) Repeat

5) Engage in sideline banter about “real life” to make it seem like you’re a regular guy and not just a corporate-funded shill. “My daughter!” “Her laptop!”

re: #717 reason0911

If dismissing a theory is absurd, then what do you call the opinions of someone like Art Robinson who is, in fact, dismissing not only theory, but emprical evidence?

re: #718 iossarian

5) Engage in sideline banter about “real life” to make it seem like you’re a regular guy and not just a corporate-funded shill. “My daughter!” “Her laptop!”

I was throwing that under complain.

re: #719 darthstar

If dismissing a theory is absurd, then what do you call the opinions of someone like Art Robinson who is, in fact, dismissing not only theory, but emprical evidence?

Art Robinson is a brave scientist! A shining beacon of truthiness surrounded by the darkness of liberal conspiracies designed to feminize the manly United States of Americaaa…

More garbage “theories”:

U.S. government AIDS programs are now receiving $6 billion per year and are based entirely upon the hypothesis that HIV virus causes AIDS. Yet, the articles referenced above and numerous additional publications by scientists who have become involved in this controversy state that: attempts to cause AIDS experimentally with HIV have completely failed; thousands of AIDS victims are HIV-free; and HIV shows none of the classical characteristics of a disease-producing organism. Moreover, AIDS is not a unique disease – it is an increased susceptibility to many ordinary diseases presumably as a result of depressed immune response. This depressed immunity can result from many other factors including those especially prevalent in the AIDS afflicted population – drug abuse and unhygienic exposure to very large numbers of different disease vectors. Moreover, large numbers of HIV carriers who are symptom-free are being treated by powerful life-threatening drugs that kill people in ways very similar to AIDS.

These dissident articles are, of course, only a tiny fraction of the remarkable 77,000 papers that have been published about AIDS, but ultimately only one paper will be sufficient to describe the truth.

It’s not even a theory. It’s more like a wingnut op-ed piece.

re: #712 Obdicut

this is a satirical website.

re: #721 iossarian

Art Robinson is a brave scientist! A shining beacon of truthiness surrounded by the darkness of liberal conspiracies designed to feminize the manly United States of Americaaa…

In other words, he was interviewed by a LESBIAN!!11ty!

By the way, I went to the Giants game with two lesbians last night, and Lincecum still threw 14 Ks…

re: #719 darthstar

he is not dismissing it. He said that the burden of proof was on the advocates of the science. that was 15 years ago. but again, i’d like to point out that there is still much uncertainty about what HIV is and how to diagnose it.

re: #712 Obdicut

Actually, there are.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatea rthsociety.htm

You can just Google flat earth society if you don’t want to click on that link.

Do you need to consider their theories, or can you dismiss them a priori?

You gotta love their mission statement.

HIV/AIDS: Causes – MayoClinic.com

Causes
By Mayo Clinic staff

Scientists believe a virus similar to HIV first occurred in some populations of chimps and monkeys in Africa, where they’re hunted for food. Contact with an infected monkey’s blood during butchering or cooking may have allowed the virus to cross into humans and become HIV.

How does HIV become AIDS?

HIV destroys CD4 cells — a specific type of white blood cell that plays a large role in helping your body fight disease. Your immune system weakens as more CD4 cells are killed. You can have an HIV infection for years before it progresses to AIDS.

To be diagnosed with AIDS, you must have a CD4 count under 200 or experience an AIDS-defining complication, such as:

* Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia
* Cytomegalovirus
* Tuberculosis
* Toxoplasmosis
* Cryptosporidiosis

How HIV is transmitted

To become infected with HIV, infected blood, semen or vaginal secretions must enter your body. You can’t become infected through ordinary contact — hugging, kissing, dancing or shaking hands — with someone who has HIV or AIDS. HIV can’t be transmitted through the air, water or via insect bites.

re: #717 reason0911

I’m not arguing that we don’t accept the science available to us.

The science available to us shows, through the evidence of millions of cases, that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

I’m saying that dismissing a theory without exploration is absurd.

Do you know what the difference between a theory and an hypothesis is? Clearly not.

Here, I wrote a detailed essay about that too, and how the scientific method actually works.

How science works and why we should trust it: Pre-science lecture 2
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

You have no objective basis to come to a contrary conclusion.

My objective basis is the work of the worldwide medical and virological community. I am not a physician or a virologist however. I am however, a professional physicist. Since we are not all capable of knowing every field, we have to develop the skills to spot real science and real scientific inquiry. Tens of thousands of corroborating accounts from different respected researchers counts.

You’ve chosen either to believe or not to believe, but that hardly makes you right or puts you in a position to criticize those who haven’t come to the same belief as you.

Actually this is precisely what you are doing. Science is not about belief at all. It is about data and evidence.

It’s the same point I make with my Christian friend who’s always trying to save me. You believe in God and Jesus Christ. Good for you. You don’t know but you have faith. You recognize that it is a leap of faith yet you criticize me for not taking that same leap of faith without providing any evidence to support your claim.

That would be you. What evidence do you have on this matter of your own?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m not in a position to…and nor is anyone on this thread that I can tell. Maybe there are some scientists here, but I doubt it.

Well too bad for you that I’m here kiddo

re: #725 reason0911

he is not dismissing it. He said that the burden of proof was on the advocates of the science. that was 15 years ago. but again, i’d like to point out that there is still much uncertainty about what HIV is and how to diagnose it.

It’s called a blood test. They look for antibodies in the blood, and can have results in about 30 minutes. There’s no uncertainty about it at all.

re: #725 reason0911

he is not dismissing it. He said that the burden of proof was on the advocates of the science. that was 15 years ago. but again, i’d like to point out that there is still much uncertainty about what HIV is and how to diagnose it.

It was already settled 15 years ago. Arthur Robinson had no excuse then and he has no excuse now. HIV was discovered in 1983.

re: #717 reason0911

ahahan “reason0911″ I love the names you guys come up with

re: #720 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

lol. I’m sitting at my desk with my door closed neglecting to do my work because it’s boring and I hate it. Luckily I’m a manager so I don’t have too much to be concerned about in the way of being caught. in a half hour I’m going to leave work, buy myself an awesome coat and make it home in time to take my little one to karate…

or I could just be a shill.

re: #723 reason0911

this is a satirical website.

Gee, I wonder how that could be? however, they still accurately represent a lot of the theories of flat earthers– why are theories disallowed simply because they’re satirical?

Here’s the real deal:

[Link: theflatearthsociety.org...]

By the way to my lizard buddies, this guy is exactly why I wrote those pre-science lectures first. The things they say follow a certain play-book based on certain carefully cultivated (by people like Robinson and Stietz and their crackpot foundations) misunderstandings. It is as predictable as it is dull; ignorant, whiny and arrogantly stupid.

re: #725 reason0911

he is not dismissing it. He said that the burden of proof was on the advocates of the science. that was 15 years ago. but again, i’d like to point out that there is still much uncertainty about what HIV is and how to diagnose it.

I love blog comment dumbshits in dead threads who make up crazy bullshit about science
I love guys like the you, don’t ever change We beat your dumb asses all over the internet, it’s a great way to start the day

Of course now the question is “What evidence do we have that Ludwig is in fact a scientist?”

No links please.

///

re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

do you have a website?

re: #734 LudwigVanQuixote

By the way to my lizard buddies, this guy is exactly why I wrote those pre-science lectures first. The things they say follow a certain play-book based on certain carefully cultivated (by people like Robinson and Stietz and their crackpot foundations) misunderstandings. It is as predictable as it is dull; ignorant, whiny and arrogantly stupid.

Too bad they’ll never read what you wrote.

re: #732 reason0911

or I could just be a shill.

The thing is, it’s difficult to come up with an alternative explanation of why people so assiduously avoid the evidence.

I know, I know, you don’t like to click on links because of the viruses.

Image: Foilhat_tin-foil_hats.jpg

re: #732 reason0911

lol. I’m sitting at my desk with my door closed neglecting to do my work because it’s boring and I hate it. Luckily I’m a manager so I don’t have too much to be concerned about in the way of being caught. in a half hour I’m going to leave work, buy myself an awesome coat and make it home in time to take my little one to karate…

or I could just be a shill.

Don’t forget to stop by plumbing on your way out of the store before going out and buying a coat…your sense of reason is clogged, and what you think is awesome might look foolish to your kid.

Image: tin-foil-hat.jpg

re: #735 WindUpBird

I love blog comment dumbshits in dead threads who make up crazy bullshit about science

Well, one could argue he had a bit of a Lazarus effect on this thread.

re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

I’m going to need re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t need a link to you telling me how science works. I need you to give me the science that convinced you and point out flaws in his science and conclusion. Can you do this?

re: #743 darthstar

Well, one could argue he had a bit of a Lazarus effect on this thread.

It’s sorta like when cats see a dragonfly, they’re like OH HAY! and they aaal cluster around

and then they bat it around for a while, and then they eat it

re: #744 reason0911

I’m going to need re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t need a link to you telling me how science works. I need you to give me the science that convinced you and point out flaws in his science and conclusion. Can you do this?

Do you call it sauce or gravy?

re: #741 darthstar

you’re a clever one aren’t you…

re: #737 reason0911

do you have a website?

Most of my stuff is here. I have a mini blog on this site. You can check out my posts and get there by following either of the links I gave you. I am particularly interested in – and do research into AGW. You will find, in my non-political posts, links to published, peer-reviewed journals and government reports that will supply you with all of the data you could possibly want.

re: #747 reason0911

you’re a clever one aren’t you…

Soda or pop? Just curious what side of the country you’re from

re: #744 reason0911

I’m going to need re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t need a link to you telling me how science works. I need you to give me the science that convinced you and point out flaws in his science and conclusion. Can you do this?

Step 2

re: #744 reason0911

I’m going to need re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t need a link to you telling me how science works. I need you to give me the science that convinced you and point out flaws in his science and conclusion. Can you do this?

To which question? Robinson says lots of completely bogus and kooky things. Which one of his lunacies would you like me to debunk?

Heh. Look at that karma rating. Registered less than 2 hours and already -122.

re: #749 WindUpBird

I don’t know what that means but I’m from Brooklyn NY better known as crooklyn or at least that’s how my friends and I used to refer to it after the spike lee movie came out.

re: #748 LudwigVanQuixote

He don’ need no steenking links.

re: #753 reason0911

I don’t know what that means but I’m from Brooklyn NY better known as crooklyn or at least that’s how my friends and I used to refer to it after the spike lee movie came out.

Step 3

re: #750 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Step 2

Well they get the same plays as the Disco Institute types, because that play book was written by folks like Robinson and Steitz.

re: #673 reason0911

you’re right. I misspoke. I rarely click on links of unknown origin. I try to avoid viruses.

Lame.

re: #752 Charles

I registered so I could comment on the post. I saw a blog post elsewhere about the interview but they didn’t provide a working link so I googled it and this is what I got. Saw the comments and decided to blow off work for the rest of the afternoon.

re: #753 reason0911

I don’t know what that means but I’m from Brooklyn NY better known as crooklyn or at least that’s how my friends and I used to refer to it after the spike lee movie came out.

eh you’re probably from so cal

everyone on the internet in so cal likes to say they’re from new york

re: #759 WindUpBird

eh you’re probably from so cal

everyone on the internet in so cal likes to say they’re from new york

I’m in SoCal and screw New York.

re: #744 reason0911

I’m going to need re: #728 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t need a link to you telling me how science works. I need you to give me the science that convinced you and point out flaws in his science and conclusion. Can you do this?

It’s always the same old shit, isn’t it? “I need you to tell me again.” “No, that didn’t satisfy me, I need you to tell me again.” “Can you point me to some real evidence?”

Then it’s “But the solutions being proposed are ECONOMIC SUICIDE.”

Then it’s “If the AGW crowd would just stop using this as a POLITICAL FOOTBALL, maybe I could get on board.”

Then it’s back to step one, with a different registration.

re: #747 reason0911

you’re a clever one aren’t you…

You said you’re a manager who isn’t too worried about getting caught doing jack shit at work because you have an office. I interpreted that to mean that your employees were out working on the floor…sarcastically, I admit. But what it really means is that you’re in a job you don’t like, but you feel relatively safe in it, so long as you spend two or three hours a week generating excel sheets for your boss and don’t look too disinterested in meetings.

you know what, this is ridiculout and I’m not going to waste time proving I’m a real person. here’s a link to my facebook.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #758 reason0911

I registered so I could comment on the post. I saw a blog post elsewhere about the interview but they didn’t provide a working link so I googled it and this is what I got. Saw the comments and decided to blow off work for the rest of the afternoon.

I hope you typed in the URL instead of clicking the virus-laden link. If not, you must immediately disinfect your intranets to avoid permanent brickage.

re: #761 iossarian

he didn’t tell me anything. lol. he sent me to a link that is off topic. what are you talking about?!

re: #764 Charles

i typed it in… well actually I copied and pasted.

re: #763 reason0911

you know what, this is ridiculout and I’m not going to waste time proving I’m a real person. here’s a link to my facebook.

You’re not real until we say you’re real.

re: #766 reason0911

i typed it in… well actually I copied and pasted.

Whew. That was close.

re: #766 reason0911

i typed it in… well actually I copied and pasted.

[Link: disney.go.com...]

re: #762 darthstar

I’m really smart. My work gets done fast and the owner feels confident in my abilities. It’s a small office, kinda like a family.

re: #766 reason0911

i typed it in… well actually I copied and pasted.

/facepalm

Yes, because that guarantees you wont hit a redirect or anything like that.

Moron.

re: #769 Gus 802

yep. like that.

re: #770 reason0911

I’m really smart

I’m going to need to see some evidence for that.

Umm Reason?

Which of the completely bogus bits on nonsense from the fraud Robinson would you like me to debunk? I will be very happy to present evidence (though you might have to click a link or two) and a detailed logical argument.

re: #763 reason0911

you know what, this is ridiculout and I’m not going to waste time proving I’m a real person. here’s a link to my facebook.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Sorry, no links please.

re: #771 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

now now. I’m hardly a moron. Maybe a little internet ignorant, but I think you’re overstating a bit.

re: #765 reason0911

Look, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt one last time. All the evidence supports AGW. There are hardly any credible scientists that deny it; my climate scientist friend tells me he knows of two in his entire field, of which one is a known contrarian and the other runs research projects sponsored by oil companies.

The links to the evidence get posted here every time someone comes along with the line that “the science isn’t settled.”

There is simply no way that people can reasonably make this claim for any prolonged period of time. In fact a lot of the people that post here have changed their opinions significantly towards an acceptance that AGW is real over the past few years.

re: #777 iossarian

In the meat world, I probably know your friend

re: #776 reason0911

now now. I’m hardly a moron. Maybe a little internet ignorant, but I think you’re overstating a bit.

Oh, I think you’re making my case quite nicely for me on that particular count.

re: #766 reason0911

LOL!
Continue the educating, folks!

re: #778 LudwigVanQuixote

You might well do. He wrote his thesis on temperature change in ice ages past. He’s been in the field for about 10-15 years now I would guess.

re: #780 Floral Giraffe

there is no educating occurring here. Just ad hominem attacks because I’m detracting from what I guess is the standard line.

re: #782 reason0911

there is no educating occurring here. Just ad hominem attacks because I’m detracting from what I guess is the standard line.

Ah, the “party line” gambit. Blood in the water.

re: #783 iossarian

Ah, the “party line” gambit. Blood in the water.

Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

re: #784 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

LOL

“I’m being repressed!”

re: #782 reason0911

there is no educating occurring here. Just ad hominem attacks because I’m detracting from what I guess is the standard line.

What ad hominem? You’re being mocked, openly, based on your inability to recognize a valid argument. Nobody’s calling you an asshole. In fact, you’ve been asked repeatedly for clarification. Christ, you’re about as hypersensitive as Sarah Palin (THAT’s ad hominem, by the way).

re: #782 reason0911

there is no educating occurring here. Just ad hominem attacks because I’m detracting from what I guess is the standard line.

No on the contrary. I am very happy to educate you. Which particular claim of Robinson’s do you wish me to discuss?

As to science having a standard line well, it goes something like this:

It is important to note that nowhere in the definition of science is there any room for democracy, personal preference or being “even handed” with the other side. In a scientific debate, once sufficient data comes in, there is always a winner and a loser.

Amongst professional scientists, these debates generally take two forms. Firstly, “does this really mean what you think it means?” Secondly, “did you really see what you think you saw?” Once those debates are settled, you have clarity. Both debates are closed by more data and/or better analysis. Eventually, the evidence mounts and consensus is reached. An open debate implies that there is, as yet, insufficient data, incomplete analysis or both. The final word always goes to the physical evidence itself. There is no “second place.” This is as it should be. Good scientists do not say that the universe is some way that it isn’t to please anyone, ever.

re: #782 reason0911

there is no educating occurring here. Just ad hominem attacks because I’m detracting from what I guess is the standard line.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside evolution in science class?

re: #785 iossarian

LOL

“I’m being repressed!”

Bloody peasants.

re: #785 iossarian

LOL

“I’m being repressed!”

He is waiting to whine about the violence inherent in the system!

re: #781 iossarian

Does he conclude that the ice ages past were anthropomorphic? Or that the warming periods that followed were anthropomorphic? re: #783 iossarian

re: #785 iossarian

I’m not repressed, re: #786 darthstar

wait. what’s the valid argument?

re: #789 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Bloody peasants.

They really are revolting!

re: #790 LudwigVanQuixote

she!

re: #793 reason0911

she!

Really…well that changes…nothing.

re: #793 reason0911

she!

Very well madame, would you care to take up my challenge or whine some more that no one is interested in educating you?

re: #787 LudwigVanQuixote

Having been identified as a primary threat, your posts will from this point either be ignored or deflected so as not to engage. Meanwhile, he will continue to press other posters to provide evidence, then give reasons why their’s in unsuitable.

re: #795 LudwigVanQuixote

Very well madame, would you care to take up my challenge or whine some more that no one is interested in educating you?

Nobody ever calls me “madame”…sheesh.

re: #788 Gus 802

should it be taught as a fact? of course not. Should it be taught as a social theory. sure. they’re going to come across people who believe it. they ought to have an understanding of it. They teach worse things in school. believe me. My kids still come home with stuff calling “honest” abe the freer of slaves. a widely dispelled mistruth.

re: #791 reason0911

Does he conclude that the ice ages past were anthropomorphic? Or that the warming periods that followed were anthropomorphic? re: #783 iossarian

Well, I’m glad you asked, since I specifically asked him that question the last time we met (we were out for a few beers in a small group that also included an AGW skeptic/denier friend of mine).

He said that the current warming is much, much more rapid than can be explained by the models that are used to explain past ice ages.

So the answer to your question is that no, past warming was not anthropogenic (I think that’s the word you’re looking for) and that yes, current warming is anthropogenic.

The only remaining open questions are around the specifics of the models used to predict just how bad the current situation is getting.

re: #798 reason0911

should it be taught as a fact?

Should evolution be taught as a fact?

re: #798 reason0911

should it be taught as a fact? of course not. Should it be taught as a social theory. sure. they’re going to come across people who believe it. they ought to have an understanding of it. They teach worse things in school. believe me. My kids still come home with stuff calling “honest” abe the freer of slaves. a widely dispelled mistruth.

Hmm. OK.

I think your boat just sprung an even bigger leak.

re: #797 darthstar

Nobody ever calls me “madame”…sheesh.

Well, maybe if you wore that feather boa more often.

re: #795 LudwigVanQuixote

sure. I’m up for the “challenge” though I’m not quite sure what it is. I’m not a threat. I believe in non-aggression.

re: #798 reason0911

My kids still come home with stuff calling “honest” abe the freer of slaves. a widely dispelled mistruth.

Why do you hate Abraham Lincoln?

I guess the Emancepation Proclamation is just a theory for some people.

[rolls eyes]

re: #796 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Having been identified as a primary threat, your posts will from this point either be ignored or deflected so as not to engage. Meanwhile, he will continue to press other posters to provide evidence, then give reasons why their’s in unsuitable.

She is apparently a she… Alas, I am repressing her dogma that she misrepresents as free thought or her own ideas. Alas, I am happy to use all of that actual science and data to repudiate the half truths, blatant falsehoods and things taken on faith by her.

These sorts hate that.

re: #805 Gus 802

I guess the Emancepation Proclamation is just a theory for some people.

[rolls eyes]

I don’t listen to hip hop.

re: #798 reason0911

should it be taught as a fact? of course not. Should it be taught as a social theory. sure. they’re going to come across people who believe it. they ought to have an understanding of it. They teach worse things in school. believe me. My kids still come home with stuff calling “honest” abe the freer of slaves. a widely dispelled mistruth.

Hang on…did you just put quotes around the word honest in reference to Abraham Lincoln and question the Emancipation Proclamation?

Link to Emancipation Proclamation
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #798 reason0911

They teach worse things in school. believe me.

Like the stuff being promoted by teh “Homersexual Agenda”!!11ty

re: #804 Charles

I hate him!!! lol.

Of course I don’t hate him, but clearly he did not take the country to war to free slaves and there were slaves across america well after the emancipation was signed. I know my own history.

re: #804 Charles

Why do you hate Abraham Lincoln?

Isn’t always fascinating how these people free assosciate their grievances. When one point gets hammered down or debunked, they move on to yet another gripe as if the first discussion never happened.

I really love how they talk about how they whine reason and free inquiry when reason is the last thing they are interested in.

re: #810 reason0911

I know my own history.

Freudian slip?

re: #806 LudwigVanQuixote

She is apparently a she… Alas, I am repressing her dogma that she misrepresents as free thought or her own ideas. Alas, I am happy to use all of that actual science and data to repudiate the half truths, blatant falsehoods and things taken on faith by her.

These sorts hate that.

I notice she went with the deflect choice. A bold move. I was expecting at least 3 or 4 posts before responding to you on a completely different post.

re: #806 LudwigVanQuixote

I haven’t taken anything on faith. Please provide the science…from both sides. I’d like to make a comparison and since you’ve already done that you can help and it’ll be a challenge for me which I’m up to…sifting through all that info and trying to interpret it. I’m down.

re: #810 reason0911

I hate him!!! lol.

Of course I don’t hate him, but clearly he did not take the country to war to free slaves and there were slaves across america well after the emancipation was signed. I know my own history.

So that minor slavery issue was just an excuse for “honest” Abe to do … something else? What, exactly? Please be as detailed as possible.

So it registered to talk about a climate change, but picked the handle “reason0911″ now I wonder what that’s about?

re: #810 reason0911

I hate him!!! lol.

Of course I don’t hate him, but clearly he did not take the country to war to free slaves and there were slaves across america well after the emancipation was signed. I know my own history.

A word of advice…this hole you’re in…digging isn’t going to get you out of it.

re: #807 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

you must be a racist then. Who doesn’t listen to Lil’ Wayne. lol

re: #798 reason0911

Oh, dear me.

re: #814 reason0911

I haven’t taken anything on faith. Please provide the science…from both sides. I’d like to make a comparison and since you’ve already done that you can help and it’ll be a challenge for me which I’m up to…sifting through all that info and trying to interpret it. I’m down.

Step 1

re: #817 darthstar

non-sequitur.

re: #818 reason0911

you must be a racist then. Who doesn’t listen to Lil’ Wayne. lol

/raises hand

re: #791 reason0911

Does he conclude that the ice ages past were anthropomorphic? Or that the warming periods that followed were anthropomorphic? re: #783 iossarian

re: #785 iossarian

I’m not repressed, re: #786 darthstar

wait. what’s the valid argument?

Anthropogenic.

re: #799 iossarian

Well, I’m glad you asked, since I specifically asked him that question the last time we met (we were out for a few beers in a small group that also included an AGW skeptic/denier friend of mine).

He said that the current warming is much, much more rapid than can be explained by the models that are used to explain past ice ages.

So the answer to your question is that no, past warming was not anthropogenic (I think that’s the word you’re looking for) and that yes, current warming is anthropogenic.

The only remaining open questions are around the specifics of the models used to predict just how bad the current situation is getting.

Just to add to that, heating up a planet is hard to do. Planets are big and have a lot of thermal inertia.

There are only so many mechanisms that can pull it off. Orbital variations and volcanic activity are two of the biggest.

Right now, as per orbital variations, we should be cooling (yet we are warming at an alarming rate) and there has been no dramatic volcanic activity of the sort, that could do this, in the past 200 years.

Since it is well established that CO2 is a GHG, and it is easy to directly measure our output of it and concentrations of it in the present atmosphere, we know we are doing it. We are the only viable cause left.

re: #821 reason0911

non-sequitur.

No…not really. Let me guess…you think there were black soldiers voluntarily fighting for the South as well during the Civil War. Your visit, while it might be short lived, has certainly been entertaining.

re: #816 Thanos
re: #816 Thanos

registered to talk say that dismissing re: #822 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

/raises hand too.

re: #814 reason0911

There are not “two sides” in science. There are just scientists. Sometimes they disagree, but that doesn’t put them on “opposite sides”.

This is a fundamental misconception about science that is exploited by people who seek to ignore its conclusions.

re: #824 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, Ludwig, now we know what ONE SIDE says, what about the OTHER SIDE?

Eh?

EH???

o_O

As fun as this is, I’m off

re: #828 iossarian

OK, Ludwig, now we know what ONE SIDE says, what about the OTHER SIDE?

Eh?

EH???

o_O

Ra’s chariot is pulling the sun closer to earth and he will only stop once the proper sacrifices have been offer to the Nile.

re: #825 darthstar

I don’t know about that. I’ve heard it said, but for my part, I’m black and I know for certain that slavery persisted after the emancipation and lincoln said many times that while he opposed slavery and thought Africans should be sent back to Africa or other places, he said that he would not oppose slavery politically if it would keep the country together. The war was about a secession and tariffs and not slavery.

re: #826 reason0911

Registered to talk gibberish?

re: #814 reason0911

I haven’t taken anything on faith. Please provide the science…from both sides. I’d like to make a comparison and since you’ve already done that you can help and it’ll be a challenge for me which I’m up to…sifting through all that info and trying to interpret it. I’m down.

On which of Robinson’s claims?

As to Anthropogenic Global Warming, look at my 824.

As to AIDs being caused by HIV, that has already been discussed up thread.

I wrote a post even further up thread about his crazy views on hormesis.

As to both sides, in science, there are no two sides ever. There is no second place. Either the data, evidence and mathematics supports you or it does not. The data support AGW, HIV as the cause of AIDS and the fact that hormesis is misapplied in the case of radiation.

re: #833 LudwigVanQuixote

On which of Robinson’s claims?

As to Anthropogenic Global Warming, look at my 824.

As to AIDs being caused by HIV, that has already been discussed up thread.

I wrote a post even further up thread about his crazy views on hormesis.

As to both sides, in science, there are no two sides ever. There is no second place. Either the data, evidence and mathematics supports you or it does not. The data support AGW, HIV as the cause of AIDS and the fact that hormesis is misapplied in the case of radiation.

Let it rain toxic waste!
/Art Robinson

re: #833 LudwigVanQuixote

HIV wasn’t discussed and the point I made about testing was completely ignored. I’ll check out the link in 824 now.

Yes. Ignore history. Ignore the Emancipation Proclamation and even the 13th Amendment.

While the Senate did pass the amendment on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, the House declined to do so. After it was reintroduced by Representative James Mitchell Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role to ensure its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts came to fruition when the House passed the bill on January 21, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56. The Thirteenth Amendment’s archival copy bears an apparent Presidential signature, under the usual ones of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, after the words “Approved February 1, 1865″.

The Thirteenth Amendment completed the abolition of slavery, which had begun with the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863.

Shortly after the amendment’s adoption, selective enforcement of certain laws, such as laws against vagrancy, allowed blacks to continue to be subjected to involuntary servitude in some cases.

The Thirteenth Amendment was followed by the Fourteenth Amendment (civil rights in the states), in 1868, and the Fifteenth Amendment (which bans racial voting restrictions), in 1870.

All within a year and weeks of Lincoln’s assassination on April 15, 1865.

Damn.
I never knew anyone could possibly take Robinson seriously.
:/

Ok. Ire: #833 LudwigVanQuixote

Ok. I’m going to copy and paste 824 to word and research it. I’ll let you know what I come up with. give me some time. I’m not likely to come back here, but if you friend me on facebook at the link provided I’ll be certain to get back to you. Hopefully without any animosity. I don’t see any reason for it.

Ah, the victim card.
Predictable.

re: #831 reason0911

I don’t know about that. I’ve heard it said, but for my part, I’m black and I know for certain that slavery persisted after the emancipation and lincoln said many times that while he opposed slavery and thought Africans should be sent back to Africa or other places, he said that he would not oppose slavery politically if it would keep the country together. The war was about a secession and tariffs and not slavery.

Well, it’s not like it was sent out by email…it took weeks for information to travel across the country back then…longer still in Texas.

All wars are, at some level, about economics. I’ll give you that. But the session was over the expansion of slavery into northern states, which Lincoln was against (i.e. he was against expanded slavery).

From wikipedia:

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. In response to the Republican victory in that election, seven states declared their secession from the Union before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing administration of President James Buchanan and Lincoln’s incoming administration rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion. Several other slave states rejected calls for secession at this point.Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state to recapture federal property. This led to declarations of secession by four more slave states. Both sides raised armies as the Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade. In September 1862, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal,[1] and dissuaded the British from intervening.[2]

The South started it. Lincoln said, “Fine, fuckers. Game on.” and that led to the end of slavery. So yes, he did free the slaves. It’s okay to let your kids learn that in school.

re: #838 reason0911

Ok. I

Ok. I’m going to copy and paste 824 to word and research it. I’ll let you know what I come up with. give me some time. I’m not likely to come back here, but if you friend me on facebook at the link provided I’ll be certain to get back to you. Hopefully without any animosity. I don’t see any reason for it.

Your facebook link was actually a link to Ludwig’s pre-Science discussion…you never did post a facebook link. Just saying.

Science Denialism, Historical Revisionism — a single Ron PAUL! would win it the trifecta.

re: #840 darthstar

The emancipation freed only those slaves in territories not under union control.

re: #842 Thanos

see 843. this is a fact

re: #838 reason0911

Ok. I

Ok. I’m going to copy and paste 824 to word and research it. I’ll let you know what I come up with. give me some time. I’m not likely to come back here, but if you friend me on facebook at the link provided I’ll be certain to get back to you. Hopefully without any animosity. I don’t see any reason for it.

I don’t bear you any ill will. If you are honestly going to research it, please do the following.

Understand what a Milankovitch cycle is, in terms of orbital forcing. If you get those, then you get the main point about how we discredit orbital variation and how we have tied them to past warm and cool periods in the Earth’s history.

As to volcanic activity, please use a respected source for your data. The various US geological groups are very good at giving data on the web. Do not use some opinion web site. Get the real thing and accept no substitute.

Also, you can check out NASA solar emission measurements to find that the sun isn’t abnormally hot either.

text from the emancipation proclamation:

“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as
slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people
whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall
be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive
government of the United States, including the military and naval
authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such
persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any
of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

re: #846 reason0911

text from the emancipation proclamation:

“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as
slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people
whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall
be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive
government of the United States, including the military and naval
authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such
persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any
of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

Well, given that slavery was already prohibited in the other states not rebelling, that would seem to be pretty inclusive.

re: #844 reason0911

You’re providing a viewpoint we don’t normally see around here, for which I thank you. Where do you stand on the Darwin issue?

re: #847 darthstar

Shhh… you might confuse him, don’t mention the 13th or 14th amendment either…

re: #845 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t bear you any ill will. If you are honestly going to research it, please do the following.

Understand what a Milankovitch cycle is, in terms of orbital forcing. If you get those, then you get the main point about how we discredit orbital variation and how we have tied them to past warm and cool periods in the Earth’s history.

As to volcanic activity, please use a respected source for your data. The various US geological groups are very good at giving data on the web. Do not use some opinion web site. Get the real thing and accept no substitute.

Also, you can check out NASA solar emission measurements to find that the sun isn’t abnormally hot either.

LVQ–Have you been away at some freakn’ mellow ashram? Didn’t you hear that yoga is dangerous to the soul? I read that on a web link.

re: #845 LudwigVanQuixote

this is what I have in mind. the sharing of ideas, but please, I have to go so either friend me or send me a message through facebook so I have a way to get in contact with you. This is an invite to you only. Everyone else has dedicated themselves to calling me names

re: #847 darthstar

that isn’t true. please re-read the history.

re: #848 Charles

sounds the most viable to me.

re: #851 reason0911

this is what I have in mind. the sharing of ideas, but please, I have to go so either friend me or send me a message through facebook so I have a way to get in contact with you. This is an invite to you only. Everyone else has dedicated themselves to calling me names

I didn’t call you names, and for the last time, you didn’t link your facebook account, you linked Ludwig’s page. Not all hyperlinks go to the same place.

re: #854 darthstar

I didn’t call you names, and for the last time, you didn’t link your facebook account, you linked Ludwig’s page. Not all hyperlinks go to the same place.

Unless Al Gore frakked up when he was placing the series of tubes…

re: #847 darthstar

Well, given that slavery was already prohibited in the other states not rebelling, that would seem to be pretty inclusive.

In fairness to her, the border states like Kentucky and Missouri (where slavery was legal) were specifically exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation, probably because Lincoln wisely didn’t want to deal with the possibility of added revolts in those states.

Of course, all of that was taken care of by the time the 13th Ammendment rolled around, which Miss reason is steadfastly ignoring.

re: #851 reason0911

this is what I have in mind. the sharing of ideas, but please, I have to go so either friend me or send me a message through facebook so I have a way to get in contact with you. This is an invite to you only. Everyone else has dedicated themselves to calling me names

I don’t call people names. , dipshit.

re: #856 gehazi

In fairness to her, the border states like Kentucky and Missouri (where slavery was legal) were specifically exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation, probably because Lincoln wisely didn’t want to deal with the possibility of added revolts in those states.

Of course, all of that was taken care of by the time the 13th Ammendment rolled around, which Miss reason is steadfastly ignoring.

Point taken.

re: #850 Decatur Deb

LVQ–Have you been away at some freakn’ mellow ashram? Didn’t you hear that yoga is dangerous to the soul? I read that on a web link.

I reserve my vitriol for the jerks. This one is not a jerk. She is stubborn and misinformed, but has not yet been rude, obnoxious or condescending.

re: #854 darthstar

lol. my bad.

Your text to link…

re: #717 reason0911

It’s Friday and someone is trying to paint LVQ as dim and thick about climate science. I dunno, but that was enough to make me laugh hysterically for the first time today.

Let’s just say, you went for the big box when you should have stayed behind the curtain. Sometimes having your limitations pointed out in a public place can be painful. Especially when they use big words. And have lots of facts. And tremendous endurance.

You might take up another pastime, like ice skating uphill. Just saying.

re: #859 LudwigVanQuixote

I reserve my vitriol for the jerks. This one is not a jerk. She is stubborn and misinformed, but has not yet been rude, obnoxious or condescending.

Yes, the language level is improving. It’s still disingenuous crap.

re: #859 LudwigVanQuixote

lol.

I have to run. talk to you later. My name is Angel, by the way.

Yep. Figures. Ron Paul.

Another neo-Confederate apologist to boot.

re: #860 reason0911

lol. my bad.

Your text to link…

You’re with Campaign for Liberty? – the LUAP NOR link! Whoo-hoo!

re: #862 Decatur Deb

Yes, the language level is improving. It’s still disingenuous crap.

Well yes.

re: #862 Decatur Deb

it’s genuine.

re: #863 reason0911

lol.

I have to run. talk to you later. My name is Angel, by the way.

I do hope that you follow through and research this. I hope that afterwards you come back. I actually am a physicist, and I care very much about this topic. I will be very happy to discuss it with you here further. If you come with legitimate questions.

re: #865 darthstar

I am with campaign for liberty. I don’t like the political aspect. I see no point to it, but I do like the philosophical perspective they are promoting.

re: #867 reason0911

it’s genuine.

You are too well schooled for that.

re: #858 darthstar

Not really, they wanted to be confederate but couldn’t and other mechanisms removed legal slavery since the Union was already there.

However, this occurred after a standing constitutional convention declared the legislature and governor void after Federal troops marched on and took over the capital. Missouri, since the Union already controlled most of it, was exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation that outlawed slavery elsewhere. However, the standing State constitutional convention repealed slavery in Missouri before Federal constitutional amendments passed. The Confederacy recognized the pro-Confederate claimants in both Kentucky and Missouri and laid claim to those states based on their authority, with representatives from both states seated in the Confederate Congress. Later versions of Confederate flags had thirteen stars, reflecting the Confederacy’s claims to Kentucky and Missouri.

re: #867 reason0911

it’s genuine.

But dangerously wrong. Do consider that if the scientific community is correct about AGW, and people like you vote against any action, or support the corrupt politicians who are opposed to action, the consequences are mass starvation, flood, drought, spread of disease and economic collapse on a global scale.

Perfect. A Paulian. Your last name is “Robinson.” Any relation to Art up there at the top of this thread?

re: #873 Charles

Perfect. A Paulian. Your last name is “Robinson.” Any relation to Art up there at the top of this thread?

She could have saved us all a lot of time if she’d just said that up front.

re: #873 Charles

Remember how tons of RP supporters went out last election and set up fake facebook accts posing as blacks, jews, contruction workers, etc. to help inflate the buzz?

re: #875 Thanos

Remember how tons of RP supporters went out last election and set up fake facebook accts posing as blacks, jews, contruction workers, etc. to help inflate the buzz?

I clicked on a few of “her” friends…Napolitano fans, Paulians…all of them.

re: #875 Thanos

Remember how tons of RP supporters went out last election and set up fake facebook accts posing as blacks, jews, contruction workers, etc. to help inflate the buzz?

Oh, and one of “her” likes was hating Barack Obama…

I had a strong suspicion immediately after reading its chosen nick.

re: #876 darthstar

She also likes “The World Against Israel’s Actions in Palestine!”.

re: #877 darthstar

re: #879 Obdicut

Seemed to have a real sense of mission.

Ron Paul… Atlas Shrugged… “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”…

Whatever. Maybe she’s for real and will actually read up on this. Ever the optimist, I.

re: #125 NJDhockeyfan

The climate has been changing for millions of years and they just decided a few years ago that global warming is the fault of humans? That’s why I don’t believe it yet.

Deb,

Now this one is a jerk… Probably good I missed him.

re: #882 LudwigVanQuixote

Deb,

Now this one is a jerk… Probably good I missed him.

That was going on at 2:30 Central. NJD is a long-term Lizard, though, not a Passing Fancy.

re: #883 Decatur Deb

That was going on at 2:30 Central. NJD is a long-term Lizard, though, not a Passing Fancy.

Yes, and he’s been a jerk for quite some time as well

Suddenly the sound of crickets is heard.

re: #468 NJDhockeyfan

72,000 stimulus payments went to dead people

I wonder how many jobs this stimulus money has created or saved?

Brietbart.com? You’re a fucking tool…

Die, dead thread die!

re: #705 reason0911

this isn’t the science. to come to a conclusion about what the virus is and isn’t one can’t rely on a timeline. That isn’t helpful at all.

But honestly I think you’re losing my point. I’m not arguing for or against his ideas. I’m stating the absurdity of arguing against an idea you haven’t explored and don’t have the background to address in any serious way.

So very stupid.

If someone states that the Earth is flat… well, I’ve never explored that idea. I have no background in any science related to demonstrating whether the Earth is spherical or flat or some other shape. But I know that the scientists who do have the necessary background are 100% in agreement that the Earth is a sphere. But you expect me to do the research and determine this for myself before I tell a flat earther he’s full of shit, instead of taking the word of thousands upon thousands of scientists over the past several hundred years?

Suppose I take my car to ten mechanics who look under the hood and run diagnostics and they all tell me the same thing is wrong with it. So someone asks me what’s wrong with my car and I say, “The thingamajig is worn down and needs replacement.” If that someone is you, I guess you say, “How do you know? Are you a mechanic? Do you possess the necessary background to make that judgment?” To which I respond… “No… I took the car to several experts and I trust their judgment, so I now share their opinion as to what is wrong with my car. I don’t even know what a thingamajig is, but I seriously doubt ten different mechanics are lying to me when they all tell me that’s what the trouble is.”

I guess after this you take me to your friend who’s a mechanic, and he looks under the hood and tells me, “The problem is not your thingamajig, its the invisible gremlin chewing on your thingamabob.” To which I reply, “Bullshit.” I suppose you fire back with, “This man is a mechanic. You have not looked under the hood of your car and you do not possess the background to question his judgment in any serious way.”

I could go on. But do you have an inkling of the point I’m trying to make here?