DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
From wikipedia:
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:
"during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
First, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for contemporary work, and second, while what she did was certainly brave and admirable, I don't see how it promotes fraternity between nations. I'm also not sure how Al Gore's work is any more qualified for a "peace" prize, but I think bringing this particular story up is an irrelevant smear.
-
In this context, it might be worth noting that under the law of Moses, the penalty for adultery was death by stoning. The penalty for (unmarried) fornication was that you had to marry the girl.
Some might question why the penalty for fornication should be more severe than that for adultery. But not me.
Bah, there's no laugh button the the Gospel forum. Took me reading your post over a few times before I got it though :)
-
Married.
In that case, I am for it being illegal, for more or less the arguments you laid out.
-
please read the above link. Temps are now in decline
.The problem is that DOE/NIST etc. etc. fund science projects (I know, NIST funded one of mine
). They fund projects that cater to gov propoganda. Gov wants taxes - excuse to get more taxes, carbon tax, the gov used fear mongering = global warming lie, to collect taxes, promote NWO UN global takeover. Look at the data, look at the graphs. CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.I could post plenty of graphs and sites that say the complete opposite, but I'm sure if you did some googling you would find them too. In fact you probably already have found some graphs and sites that say exactly the opposite of the one you posted but you also probably simply ignore the ones you disagree with and bookmark the ones that you do agree with to regurgitate in threads like this.
In short, you call their stuff propaganda supported by fallacies and they say the same back to you. I'm not sure how that really solves anything besides making both sides more sure that they are absolutely correct so I will leave you to that.
My only interest in this thread is that there are serious accusations against an organization that appear to be backed by little more than a few suggestive phrases in stolen emails. When/if people post more incriminating evidence I would change my mind, but as it is all I've seen is media fluff catering to people who already think global warming is a hoax.
-
This is the topic under discussion. Making an assertion is not the same as providing evidence.
I agree, but I also think this applies to the OP as well. I have seen a lot of people lately asserting that these hacked emails prove not only that a particular organization manipulates data but that global warming as a whole is a fraud, but I have yet to see any direct references to data that have been manipulated or evidence to back up such large assertions.
-
This may sound like a silly question, but I've only had 1.5 hours of sleep so my mind is still a bit fuzzy. Does the term adultery include sex where neither party is married, or is it only when one or both are married but not to each other?
-
It's possible that people are drawing conclusions that aren't warranted. My question, though, is why aren't the scientists in question going through the emails in question and trying to figure out what the infamous "decline" was?
Because it's a personal correspondence from 10 years ago that people are making wild assumptions about.
If there's really nothing to fear, there's no reason for the scientists not to make the email correspondences (email chains?) in question fully public, so that we can see the full conversation and know exactly what the "decline" in reference is. I don't know much about the situation, I admit- it's not that interesting to me, other than an organization devoted to researching global warming may have been caught with their 'hands in the cookie jar', so to speak.
If the full conversation was so incriminating, why didn't the hackers simply make the whole email chain available? and if it is available, why didn't any of the coverage show the whole email chain?
I wish the scientists in question would release the pertinent emails so the matter could be settled. If there really is nothing to these allegations, it will make those who questioned the emails in the first place seem very silly- despite their concerns being legitimate at the time they were had. As I said before, where there's smoke there's (usually) fire. I'd like to know for certain one way or the other.
The scientists themselves may not even have the emails. I have no idea what server was hacked or who has access to whatever archives were downloaded during the hack. Even if they did release the full email chain, no news place would run it and you wouldn't hear about because the story is already over, damage is done whether it is justified or not.
I guess that's what I really have a problem with. All it takes is sifting through years of hacked emails to find someone one person wrote one time that could be misconstrued as manipulating data and suddenly it's a "smoking gun" and all credibility from that organization is destroyed in the minds of many people. Never mind that it was obtained illegally and could very well have been altered and even assuming its not, it is still just one phrase out of YEARS of correspondence for a whole organization and it is vague.
-
It would be a "smoking gun" proving that the organization is not above manipulating the data to bolster their case- that the organization is untrustworthy.
My concern is the emphasis placed on the issue of global warming and the fact that it's being used as a tool to gain power. When prominent organizations researching and supporting global warming are exposed fudging the data, that sends up red flags. Where there's smoke, there's often fire. If a group of people are willing to lie and hide certain facts for their political gain, what will they not do?
But what data is being manipulated? Has anyone even correlated that "hide the decline" comment to a particular report or graph? Has anyone matched any of the these emails to real data that has been presented? Can anyone point to any instance of a graph or report that has been officially presented that has been manipulated? All we have here are a few vague comments in personal emails picked out of years of correspondence presented by hackers with an agenda. I think people are assuming a bit much here.
-
I believe man has contributed some to the earth's changing temperature. It may be fair to say that we're responsible for ~1% of the total change, but we still make a difference.
What I don't like- and what these emails seem to be a "smoking gun" of- is political and sceintific maneuvering to blow the issue out of proportion and use it for their own gains. It's no secret that there's lots of money and power to be gained by playing the global warming game (look at Al Gore, for instance)- evidence that the scientific data may be fudged, even a little, speaks volumes about the motivations of the scientists involved.
What I don't like is that a few emails out of years of private correspondence contain a couple phrases that vaguely suggest fudging and people are calling it a "smoking gun" against human influenced climate change as a whole. If you knew of a few reports or even organizations speaking out against global warming that had some fudged data, would that be a "smoking gun" for you?
Climate change is a very political topic and I am sure there are people on both sides who fudge data for their own gain, the more important question is how much of the data is fudged and what specific reports were fudged and none of the reports on the hacked data seem to address that other than a few "gotcha" quotes that still seem rather vague when you read the whole email they came from. Frankly I think if there were a massive cover up or large scale attempts to alter data, it seems there would be far more incriminating emails surfacing.
-
Well, maybe its just because religion promotes good moral values - even if they are cultivated because of the fear of going to hell. It seems obvious to me that immorality rides great waves of success but crash profoundly taking everything with them.
Religions often promote a specific set of values. Whether those values are objectively moral or not depends on the religion and what values it promotes.
-
Almost unreported is the little-known fact that not a single male in the entire North American hemisphere has actually willingly watched the movie
There, fixed that for you.
-
1) Is there any place we can read the full contents of the emails?
From what I've heard there's a 61 mb torrent of the "random sampling" of emails that the hackers decided to post. As for the full archive of emails obtained by the hackers, they ironically won't release that. I'd rather not post a link to it, but I'm sure you could find it pretty quickly with some creative googling or even looking through the comments on the slashdot coverage of this.
-
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Do those charitable donations in the statistics include things like tithing and donations to your church?
-
If this were the tobacco industry, food industry, car industry, etc. There would be a Senate investigation.
I somehow doubt the phrase "hide the decline" in an illegally obtained private email would cause a senate investigation for any industry.
-
Ok. Perhaps "glitch" was the wrong term. What I should have said was that assuming all threads are current happens a LOT! I was trying to say it is an easy mistake to make on this site.
Other forums I've been to have the date of the first post on the summary of the thread as well, that helps a lot with that problem.
-
Hmmm, I have only e-mails that I sent dating back to 2004 (back when the free e-mail space revolution occured
). But that is still five years ago. Anyway, reading back over the oldest ones just now, I remember exactly what I was talking about and regarding the technical ones I sent; I've even spotted some mistakes that I made, which I thought were correct at the time, and remembered a few things that happened which I'd completely forgotten about. A lot of the e-mails I don't actually remember sending, but there isn't really anything in them that has me scratching my head, and my memory is known to be little better than the memory of a fish.Our product currently has nearly 200 config settings and even though I wrote most of them, I don't remember the intricacies of how they all work. I often send out emails explaining how they work and have to document them. On more than a few occasions I have been left scratching my head as to what exactly I was talking about when I wrote the brief one sentence description (yes, like most coders I hate to document).
So yes, I can understand how when you are caught up in the mindset of a particular project, a brief description of something can make perfect sense to you and even co-workers, but then years or even months later when you are no longer actively working on that project it will suddenly make very little sense even though you are the one who wrote it.
-
Quote from article "TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.".
Let's see what else could have been meant by "hide the decline" Hmm hide the decline in warming? Hide the decline in carbon? Hide the decline? Why would you have to hide anything.
Not like you bought a new fishing rod and have to "hide" it from the wife.
Ben Raines
If after sifting through years of an organizations hacked emails the best they have is a vague reference to "hide the decline", I really don't see a "smoking gun" here.
-
Did you read the article folks. The guy who wrote the emails that were found, his resonse was, I don't know what I meant when I wrote the email. Sheesh it was ten years ago. Laughable.
Ben Raines
I have to write about 10 very technical work related emails per day. I barely remember what I was talking about when looking at my own emails from a month ago.
-
* These guys are innocent! After all, scientists never lie, unless they speak out against global warming.
After all, hackers with an agenda would never lie or cherry pick data to post.
-
Okay...he's not wearing the tee-shirt....but what about the devil horn sign"? Hmm......
Perhaps he's telling the voters to "rock on"
-
If important, influential conservatives had written a paper in the 1960s extolling the virtues of Naziism or fascism, do you think it would be wrong to publicize the fact or to suggest that modern conservative politics were very likely influenced by exactly this agenda?
Honestly, I don't think it would be "wrong" to bring it up but I do think it would be counterproductive. I don't personally know any conservatives today that seriously consider fascism to be a good idea and it would only serve to further the liberal/conservative divide to point to things like that and make wild accusations on the intentions of the "other side" of this political divide based on a single paper.
-
True and false. The existence of one plan from decades ago (closer to 40 years than 50) hardly reflects current leftist ideals. However, the authors of said paper were important and highly influential figures in leftist politics (the surviving one still is). For example, they were the impetus behind the "Motor Voter" laws. So saying that their paper and their work as a whole has had little effect on leftist political ideals is simply ignoring reality.
What I'm saying is that the average liberal today would not support such a plan which directly contradicts the implication of the OP. I am not particularly interested in politics and political leaders so I can't say with any certainty, but my feeling is that just because an influential figure wrote a paper does not mean that particular paper is equally influential.
-
I wish it were. Unfortunately, those leftists were (and are) all too serious about what they proposed.
Fortunately though, a "radical leftist" plan from nearly 50 years ago is not particularly relevant to the average liberal today and certainly not "the liberal way" as the title of this thread claims.
-
I think the religious account exists for an entirely different reason, and that it has little to do with the mechanics of creation.
For example, suppose your three-year-old asks, "Where do babies come from?" Is this your big opportunity to describe the wonders of human sexuality and the variety of pleasuring techniques available to each partner? To a three-year-old? Or is a better response to say something like (depending on your own religious and philosophical beliefs), "Babies come from heavenly Father"?
Another example: Suppose a medical student, being introduced to a type of cancer, asks: "What comes next?" He probably wants to know the oncological progression. Now suppose a lawyer asks the same question about the cancer. He probably wants to know the legal ramifications and protections involved when someone has that type of cancer. Now suppose a patient asks that upon diagnosis. He's probably asking about what treatments are available, what his options are, and so forth.
Same question with different intents and different answers.
Science and religion may both be asked to describe the creation of the earth. Science attempts to describe the mechanics of creation. Religion, on the other hand, will probably attempt to describe the much more important idea of the ends of the earth's creation and what it means to human beings. The fact that the planet may have coalesced out of a cloud of hydrogen and heavier elements thrown off from ancient supernovae really has nothing at all to do with God's purpose for us here.
That's my opinion, anyway.
I've never really thought of it that way. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
I would like to point out though, in your example of "Where do babies come from?" my parents actually did take it as an opportunity to explore the wonders of the human reproductive system, though not quite to the extent of discussing pleasuring partners.
Conservatism, we hardly know ye . . .
in Current Events
Posted
I would be far more concerned if any of the liberals I knew personally or read blogs of got caught up in trying to lynch Rush. In fact I consider myself fairly liberal and even posted in the thread here about Rush that I didn't think he was guilty of racism after looking at the arguments.
Also, before getting too smug over how liberals don't know what conservatism is really about, consider that many conservatives don't know what liberals are really all about either. I know this because I am constantly told by conservatives what I believe as a liberal and none of it seems to match up with my actual beliefs, or the beliefs of many liberals I know.