Abortion,Birth Control and Resource Depletion

For what it's worth cn I struggled and struggled to wrap my head around all the sciency stuff -my dad used to own a TV repair biz and I don't remember not going out on calls with him and I also don't remember it all making any sense past magic so I finally gave in and now just trust the experts on such matters and of course I can prove to me at least that these experts do understand what they are saying and that is really all I can do if I ever want to sleep without being heavily sedated. I am also a major with computers, cleaning, driving and thinking before I speak (it is why I love you Rollie I get to filter what comes out if I pause long enough before posting to read it lol) What helps with my acceptance of these short comings is that I have always been somehow able to understand the most obscure shit to most everyone around me likely as clearly as you do white energy -the best example would be to give me a random state's law book and ask me anything and I'll come back with some advice that would rival most who have passed the Bar- I took Business Law and Aviation Law in undergrad, no other formal education it just really makes sense to the way my brain is wired.

idk I find that folks on your side of science -although you personally do have a kick ass grasp on the use of the English language- don't tend to think that the humanities are anything but subjective but when I do my sociological studies and report on them it is 100% scientific methodology; it is only the deductions and theories formed from that data that is really subjective but then isn't anything on your end that isn't a LAW also subjective? I myself believe that whomever discovered protons and neutrons and electrons and atoms and all that whacky far out invisible stuff where fucking high as a kite tripping balls on some LSD, I also don't think that discredits their findings maybe LSD is how you see invisible things that make up atoms that make up matter and so forth but I digress...

I am trying to as humbly as possible tell you that I am an expert on these matters. I approach all my research as scientifically as possible, I know what to control for or what wasn't properly controlled and the Batman massacre aside, it is way to new to have proper facts to use as my evidence, I don't make statements I can't back up with probably a good year of diligent research obsessively poured over to prove to myself that my trust issues are valid and they are all lying rat bastards. As a matter of fact until I started typing this I was double checking my last post since you posted around 11ish so could you maybe give all this a chance and tentatively trust that I am not making this shit up and if someone is then they are amazing Bullshitters? the best?

and please riddle me this? what do the creators of the alleged myth climate change have to gain monetarily besides a carbon tax? what do the Big Oil families and all the rest of them have to gain from discrediting it to the point of almost no return? what did my Profs at HSU have to gain that seem so brilliant and passionate? do they ride their bikes 10 miles from Eureka and back every day laughing at our stupidity for believing the myth? idk I think I need to sleep

I remember a comedian saying this ... "When its really hot inside my house, I dont blame the house, I blame the sun". Every single planet in the solar system is experiencing climate change.

Originally Posted by MellowFarmer

For what it's worth cn I struggled and struggled to wrap my head around all the sciency stuff -my dad used to own a TV repair biz and I don't remember not going out on calls with him and I also don't remember it all making any sense past magic so I finally gave in and now just trust the experts on such matters and of course I can prove to me at least that these experts do understand what they are saying and that is really all I can do if I ever want to sleep without being heavily sedated. I am also a major with computers, cleaning, driving and thinking before I speak (it is why I love you Rollie I get to filter what comes out if I pause long enough before posting to read it lol) What helps with my acceptance of these short comings is that I have always been somehow able to understand the most obscure shit to most everyone around me likely as clearly as you do white energy -the best example would be to give me a random state's law book and ask me anything and I'll come back with some advice that would rival most who have passed the Bar- I took Business Law and Aviation Law in undergrad, no other formal education it just really makes sense to the way my brain is wired.

idk I find that folks on your side of science -although you personally do have a kick ass grasp on the use of the English language- don't tend to think that the humanities are anything but subjective but when I do my sociological studies and report on them it is 100% scientific methodology; it is only the deductions and theories formed from that data that is really subjective but then isn't anything on your end that isn't a LAW also subjective? I myself believe that whomever discovered protons and neutrons and electrons and atoms and all that whacky far out invisible stuff where fucking high as a kite tripping balls on some LSD, I also don't think that discredits their findings maybe LSD is how you see invisible things that make up atoms that make up matter and so forth but I digress...

I am trying to as humbly as possible tell you that I am an expert on these matters. I approach all my research as scientifically as possible, I know what to control for or what wasn't properly controlled and the Batman massacre aside, it is way to new to have proper facts to use as my evidence, I don't make statements I can't back up with probably a good year of diligent research obsessively poured over to prove to myself that my trust issues are valid and they are all lying rat bastards. As a matter of fact until I started typing this I was double checking my last post since you posted around 11ish so could you maybe give all this a chance and tentatively trust that I am not making this shit up and if someone is then they are amazing Bullshitters? the best?

and please riddle me this? what do the creators of the alleged myth climate change have to gain monetarily besides a carbon tax? what do the Big Oil families and all the rest of them have to gain from discrediting it to the point of almost no return? what did my Profs at HSU have to gain that seem so brilliant and passionate? do they ride their bikes 10 miles from Eureka and back every day laughing at our stupidity for believing the myth? idk I think I need to sleep

In a sense we complement one another, mellow.
I am comfortable and well-versed in the sciences, but when it comes to the law or humanities, i'm on a rather shakier foundation.

I will disagree with something: that the research done in the humanities is science. (Consider cultural anthropology ... politics dressed up as science, dishonoring both.)

Science is the study of nature by means of the controlled and reproducible observation. An experiment is a subset of observation. But the province of science begins and ends with nature.

The humanities require a different approach, a different discipline, because the article of study is story. Human stories do not recur with the sort of absolute consequence a mathematician or a natural philosopher ("scientist") has come to take for not only granted, but required.

While i believe that humanistic studies can be pursued with the sort of rigor traditionally ascribed to mathematicians and scientists, the protean and unique nature of the thing being studied ... the stories of people in their times and places ... requires its own approach.

As a scientist, what i find most difficult about this study is its necessary reliance on testimony, which is a far cry from the natural observer's data. False data can be found out and corrected by an application of first principles. False testimony requires something different that is not always available, such as a credible countertale.

I can only approach and evaluate the claims you make by first asking "does it make scientific/engineering sense?" If "not really", the sincerity of the appended testimony interests me less, because humans have a talent for being simultaneously sincere and incorrect. cn

Originally Posted by Chief Walkin Eagle

I remember a comedian saying this ... "When its really hot inside my house, I dont blame the house, I blame the sun". Every single planet in the solar system is experiencing climate change.

"There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling."

"Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling.

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

On a long-enough timescale, it's true. The sun's luminance is increasing by about 1% every hundred million years. cn

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling.

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

Yeah, Chief: Ur thoughts are flawed because Uranus is cooling...

Originally Posted by tyler.durden

Yeah, Chief: Ur thoughts are flawed because Uranus is cooling...

I find that an excellent cue to wipe again. cn

Originally Posted by cannabineer

In a sense we complement one another, mellow.
I am comfortable and well-versed in the sciences, but when it comes to the law or humanities, i'm on a rather shakier foundation.

I will disagree with something: that the research done in the humanities is science. (Consider cultural anthropology ... politics dressed up as science, dishonoring both.)

Science is the study of nature by means of the controlled and reproducible observation. An experiment is a subset of observation. But the province of science begins and ends with nature.

The humanities require a different approach, a different discipline, because the article of study is story. Human stories do not recur with the sort of absolute consequence a mathematician or a natural philosopher ("scientist") has come to take for not only granted, but required.

While i believe that humanistic studies can be pursued with the sort of rigor traditionally ascribed to mathematicians and scientists, the protean and unique nature of the thing being studied ... the stories of people in their times and places ... requires its own approach.

As a scientist, what i find most difficult about this study is its necessary reliance on testimony, which is a far cry from the natural observer's data. False data can be found out and corrected by an application of first principles. False testimony requires something different that is not always available, such as a credible countertale.

I can only approach and evaluate the claims you make by first asking "does it make scientific/engineering sense?" If "not really", the sincerity of the appended testimony interests me less, because humans have a talent for being simultaneously sincere and incorrect. cn

Why does this not surprise me? Yes, classes in cultural anthropology are largely a joke. Sociology is not only 'human stories" actual data is used as well as our own observations. I will let the matter rest for now I just have to point out that human stories may not recur with absolute consequence however they do recur in a pattern a lot more often than you would think over and over again in time and it is the pattern so to speak of observations, data and human testimony that is studied.