At Home

I was kidding.

I don't know about that. And marriage has practical applications in the government sphere, especially for tax purposes. It's not gonna go away, despite how hard Joni Mitchell fights it.

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.... "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." -- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams This is the guy who saved our country early on, you know. And that treaty has the power of law.

Chinstrap penguins?

Clinton's last email didn't include a money request.

Yes you have. But you don't think they're legit. If you want to look at my arguments on this go back over the years here, they're here. I'm just sick of arguing with people who will pull denier talking points out of their ass (solar fluctuations!?) and pretend like they're got equal scientific consensus on their side just because they can quote scientists on their side. It just isn't so. I'm just sick of arguing with fucking pseudo-intellectualites who puts up being open minded as a goddamned facade when you can't hear out anyone else's opinions above the roar of his own self-worth. Despite using and naming several sources to back up my argument, you belittle my completely legitimate opinions because they don't fit in with your plane of thinking and/or you've never heard of them before. If you think that the sun and the amount of heat it radiates is constant, then I just cannot progress further because of your clear lack of understanding and willingness to participate in a legitimate debate. I'm not saying I have scientific consensus, I'm saying that alternative explanations exist. What I'm bringing up is a controversial subject because it's (obviously) not politically correct to go against the grain of what the peanut gallery thinks now. Despite me agreeing with you that carbon dioxide levels are a factor in climate change, I'm apparently just wrong on all accounts. See: everything I've said on deforestation so far. Superjerk, all I said was that CO2 levels were 1000x higher than they were today. I wasn't using temperatures to back up any of my points.

So why am I wrong? I haven't heard one real legitimate argument to prove me wrong from you, Eric. Those people are wrong, obviously, but so far everything you said has been "COME ON" or something along the lines of that. The "outside of the carbon cycle" argument is bad wording, what it should say is "there isn't enough plant life to balance the levels of CO2 emissions." The natural CO2 levels were and are products of the three other variables that I posted, and the graphs prove that, but we're putting more into the atmosphere than can be recycled through plant respiratory systems. Is that causing temperature change? Yes. Is it more than changes in the luminosity or albedo variables or the status of the Milankovich cycles? No.

It's enough to do some harm, but not as much harm as the Milankovitch cycles or the luminosity changes in the sun. It's just part of the equation. And most people I know would say it's 100% of the reason.

Why did Marvin post a video of some preacher?

Right, that's why I said that higher hydrocarbon use and deforestation, etc, are changing the emissivity variable artificially and are legitimately part of the climate change picture, just not 100% of it.

Helps your point not at all. Because the gas you put in your car is made from the fucking remains of plant and animal life from this planet. The ENTIRE problem with the global warming / CO2 "thing" is that the carbon being dumped from fossil fuels is basically OUTSIDE of the carbon cycle. There is no place for it to go. And, as an aside, please forgive me if that one scientist you know doesn't convince me that Global Warming is somehow false. The sheer ratio... It's because of the respiratory systems. You know, breathing. Not just in the remains of prehistoric animals several hundred feet under the ground compressed into crude oil. It's not correct to say that CO2 from exhaust just hangs around in the air. If it's CO2, it can be processed.

No one knows. Temperature records come from arctic ice samples. When they're drilled, the level of O18/O16 is a good record of the temperature, as there is more O18 in higher temperatures. But those records don't go back 1 billion years, sedentary samples do, but they don't say how hot.

My sources are in the paper up there, and here are some other sources. Douglass, Clader, 2002, GeophResLet Haigh, J. 2007, LivRev Hoyt, D. Schatten 1993 JourGeoRes Kuhn, Schusler, 2000, SpaceSciRev Robinson, Robinson, Soon, 2007, JouAmerPhys Soon, W, 2005, GeophResLet Also, as per the billion years thing, I called up Jeff Kunh again to get a clear answer. This is his response: "If you look at the early stages of our planet, like a billion years ago, before complex life forms existed, we can see high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Same for Venus, which is by our standards are relatively young planet. This is because, we predict, high volcanic activity. We can trace these levels through limestone rock. Now, if the question after that is, 'why did those levels decrease to the levels we see today?' then the reason is because of the development of plants and respiratory systems in plants. A graph from Mauna Kea will track over the last 50 years the amount of CO2 there... it's gone up about 10%. This is probably because of deforestation. The plant and animal life on this planet has had a huge impact on carbon dioxide levels. Much more so than the gas you put in your car." From his lips to your ears. For coal levels, that graph measures the amount used in billions of tons. My guess is that coal wasn't being used on that kind of level until 1860.

Eric, if you're going to spew out shit and not even pay attention to facts, figures, and actual scientific data, then there is no purpose in you even coming here. Just because whatever I'm saying goes against what you are saying doesn't make it wrong. Glacier lengths move cyclically, anyone with a brain knows that. Seriously, the fact that I just hosted a graph from the presentation that I got has nothing to do with its credibility. It's entirely hypocritical how you debate, it's almost like you have no interest in understanding other people's opinions, no matter how well-documented they are.

You are, actually, misunderstanding her point. 1 billion years ago, there was one thousand times as much CO2 as there is in the air today. So, by Eric's understanding, that would've made the world one thousand times as hot as it is right now. But, no, that's not the case. The paper I wrote is included in this post. Climate_Change_Paper.pdf

I thought that Obama won the states that Democrats can't win in November.

Right, let's never discuss anything ever again that isn't related to porn or drinking.

Is anyone interested in reading the paper I wrote on sun variance and climate change? An astronomer who has a doctorate from Princeton gave me the lecture that I based the paper on personally. It's not the best paper I've ever written grammatically, but content-wise it's all there. It's not too long: 5 pages, double spaced.

What's bad about the enslavement of the white race?

Right, and that's because racism has been so ingrained into our social fabric. If we saw people as they truly are and took down the stupid classifications of race, then I'm sure we would see an elimination of prejudice as well (what would there be to judge?).

Racism is, by definition, categorizing people as races (stupid idea in the first place). So, yes, black people can be racist. Anyone can be racist. Everyone is a racist. If you have feelings towards people based upon their "race," that's being prejudice, but prejudice and racism are best friends. Race doesn't exist. Race is only in our minds.

Hey, I finally got some graphs and shit! So this graph indicates the level of CO2 over tens of thousands of years and the average temperature in the same time period. As we see, the two are closely related. Civilization as we know it is in the pretty stable yet very short line on the very left of the graphs, dating back about 15,000 years. So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped up very high before civilization even began to exist. The amount of CO2 production by humans have not caused the increase in temperature, as coal, oil, gas, etc only began to be used as a main source of energy really in the last 100 years or so. A conclusion we must draw is that CO2 does not cause warming, but is an indicator of it. Conclusion: CO2 levels have not affected the shrinking of glaciers, even though it increased by several times in the last 50 years. Same thing for the seas. However, a better correlation exists between the number of sunspots on the sun and the temperature at the poles.

Ah, yes, D-Day, the poorly planned invasion of Europe which left hundreds dead because of a lack of coordination at the upper levels. Ah, yes, Henry Ford, America's leading anti-semite in the roaring twenties. Woops, didn't read through the whole thing. Has Noonan really studied up on her history? Actually, I didn't like any of that. That was a good read, though.