What next !

[pcuser]

You continue to expose your agenda. The point of my response is that Rolling Stones magazine intentionally posted a provocative magazine cover to stir **** up! There is no other reason for it other than the editors and writers joined each other in a copulation of their minds and made a dumbass decision to make a couple extra bucks.

Tell me the reason and explain the purpose to use that pic as the magazine cover. Is you're point that if they had this recent picture that was released by a pissed off cop that they would have used it? You are beyond gullible if that's what you believe.

It's illuminating how you "see" a hidden agenda you claim I have. That says far more about you than any agenda you think I have. Unfortunately, it doesn't speak well of you. Do you think I'm lying about having experienced the Charles Manson cover? If I stooped to your level, this is where I'd be calling you stupid names and such. However, I instead checked out this little conspiracy you "see" with Rolling Stone magazine.

If you bothered to read the heading of the article on the cover, you would understand that your outrage is phony and made-up. Not necessarily by you. But you bought into it without thought. It says right on the cover the following "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster." It uses the only picture I've seen in all the coverage until yesterday to point to the increasingly common phenomenon of an otherwise seemingly normal college student who has an incongruous unseen dark and hideous side. In that context, it is merely illustrating the point that the picture we have all seen hides this dark side. That's not an "agenda". It compares and contrasts these two vastly differing side of his being. If you can't understand that, it says far more about your gullibility than my or Rolling Stone's "agenda". Next time, think before you speak and open yourself up to ridicule. Even though it is easier for you to view the world in black and white, The world is far more subtle than that. There really are grey areas that require us to think at deeper levels to understand what's really happening.

As an aside, these grey areas are why you and many people on this board have trouble with and denigrate science. Many issues studied by science have a high degree of complexity which require deep thought in order to draw legitimate conclusions about them. Since you don't spend the time required to think deeply and understand how they are arrived at, it is easier for you to simply try to ridicule them and call them false. For instance, think "global climate change".

[See Chris Fish]

They should have used his booking photo. That would show the real "monster" that he became.
Personally, I wish he would have bled out in that boat and we would be done with him. Now we'll spend millions to convict someone we all know is a guilty terrorist. He was the only person in Boston full of bullet holes, writing notes about the attack in the boat. I don't care about him. I think about the lives lost and those injured (not saying you don't either, I believe you care too).
Everybody has an agenda, even me. Mines mostly about fishing and how to do it more.

As an aside: to the "deep thinkers" here that understand science so well. 1000 years ago I would've been called crazy to say the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. 500 years ago you would have called me crazy to say that the world was round. 100 years ago I would have been called crazy to say that man would fly through the air. That was "known science" was it not?
Thousands of years ago the Sahara Desert and the Middle East were a lush forest. What SUVs were they driving and what factories were they using coal and oil which causes it to change? During the Revolutionary War, New York harbor froze over so you could walk all the way across. That year was known as "the year without a summer". Weather patterns change.
In the 70's I remember reading and doing a school project on a TIME article about "global freezing" which stated that the world would soon end due to all the food crops being frozen over. Then later it turned to "global warming". Now it's "global climate change".
Till a few years ago, science was "positive" that the only life on Earth came from the Sun. Then they found those tube worms and crab at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge eating the chemicals leeched from the vents. Till a few years ago, science thought that the Earth was unique. Now they've found hundreds of planet like Earth around the universe that may support life. It's amazing what we learn everyday. I personally can't wait till tomorrow to see what we've learn next.

The weather man can't tell me exactly what the weather will be in two days, let alone 200 years. It's based on models of what happened previously, i.e. an educated guess. Mother nature is a B***H. She'll take care of it, with or without our help.

Feel free to rip me a new one but please keep the words small so I can keep up seeing that I'm just a dumb redneck!!!!! Popcorn is ready to go.
Sorry for the post steal.

[seal]

It's illuminating how you "see" a hidden agenda you claim I have. That says far more about you than any agenda you think I have. Unfortunately, it doesn't speak well of you. Do you think I'm lying about having experienced the Charles Manson cover? If I stooped to your level, this is where I'd be calling you stupid names and such. However, I instead checked out this little conspiracy you "see" with Rolling Stone magazine.

If you bothered to read the heading of the article on the cover, you would understand that your outrage is phony and made-up. Not necessarily by you. But you bought into it without thought. It says right on the cover the following "How a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster." It uses the only picture I've seen in all the coverage until yesterday to point to the increasingly common phenomenon of an otherwise seemingly normal college student who has an incongruous unseen dark and hideous side. In that context, it is merely illustrating the point that the picture we have all seen hides this dark side. That's not an "agenda". It compares and contrasts these two vastly differing side of his being. If you can't understand that, it says far more about your gullibility than my or Rolling Stone's "agenda". Next time, think before you speak and open yourself up to ridicule. Even though it is easier for you to view the world in black and white, The world is far more subtle than that. There really are grey areas that require us to think at deeper levels to understand what's really happening.

As an aside, these grey areas are why you and many people on this board have trouble with and denigrate science. Many issues studied by science have a high degree of complexity which require deep thought in order to draw legitimate conclusions about them. Since you don't spend the time required to think deeply and understand how they are arrived at, it is easier for you to simply try to ridicule them and call them false. For instance, think "global climate change".

I spelled it out you spinned it. Had nothing to do with what the article says had everything to do with using a picture to stir up controversy and sell magazines profiting on a horrible event. I mentioned nothing of the article, that detail matters not. It's that simple oh great thinker and you have no clue.

By the way "global climate change" verdicts still out on the extent of the damage man has done to our climate, notice I said the extent which means that I do believe man has some impact. If I had not included that caveat I am quite certain you would have blasted me for not believing in global warming. By the way funny you should mention a subject that I am quite infatuated with and that's weather, I follow multiple blogs daily and read the details not just silly forecasts so I love science but I believe like so many of the "great thinkers" out there that they do not know it all.

I love reading everybody's posts on this website you are the only one currently I consider a complete troll and I disregard most anything you post.

[seal]

They should have used his booking photo. That would show the real "monster" that he became.
Personally, I wish he would have bled out in that boat and we would be done with him. Now we'll spend millions to convict someone we all know is a guilty terrorist. He was the only person in Boston full of bullet holes, writing notes about the attack in the boat. I don't care about him. I think about the lives lost and those injured (not saying you don't either, I believe you care too).
Everybody has an agenda, even me. Mines mostly about fishing and how to do it more.

As an aside: to the "deep thinkers" here that understand science so well. 1000 years ago I would've been called crazy to say the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. 500 years ago you would have called me crazy to say that the world was round. 100 years ago I would have been called crazy to say that man would fly through the air. That was "known science" was it not?
Thousands of years ago the Sahara Desert and the Middle East were a lush forest. What SUVs were they driving and what factories were they using coal and oil which causes it to change? During the Revolutionary War, New York harbor froze over so you could walk all the way across. That year was known as "the year without a summer". Weather patterns change.
In the 70's I remember reading and doing a school project on a TIME article about "global freezing" which stated that the world would soon end due to all the food crops being frozen over. Then later it turned to "global warming". Now it's "global climate change".
Till a few years ago, science was "positive" that the only life on Earth came from the Sun. Then they found those tube worms and crab at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge eating the chemicals leeched from the vents. Till a few years ago, science thought that the Earth was unique. Now they've found hundreds of planet like Earth around the universe that may support life. It's amazing what we learn everyday. I personally can't wait till tomorrow to see what we've learn next.

The weather man can't tell me exactly what the weather will be in two days, let alone 200 years. It's based on models of what happened previously, i.e. an educated guess. Mother nature is a B***H. She'll take care of it, with or without our help.

Feel free to rip me a new one but please keep the words small so I can keep up seeing that I'm just a dumb redneck!!!!! Popcorn is ready to go.
Sorry for the post steal.

No apology necessary, this guy intentionally attempts to stir things up, yea others do it to but for some reason this dude gets under my skin like none other and that has nothing to do with his political or "scientific" beliefs.

[HawgZWylde]

They should have used his booking photo. That would show the real "monster" that he became.
Personally, I wish he would have bled out in that boat and we would be done with him. Now we'll spend millions to convict someone we all know is a guilty terrorist. He was the only person in Boston full of bullet holes, writing notes about the attack in the boat. I don't care about him. I think about the lives lost and those injured (not saying you don't either, I believe you care too).
Everybody has an agenda, even me. Mines mostly about fishing and how to do it more.

As an aside: to the "deep thinkers" here that understand science so well. 1000 years ago I would've been called crazy to say the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. 500 years ago you would have called me crazy to say that the world was round. 100 years ago I would have been called crazy to say that man would fly through the air. That was "known science" was it not?
Thousands of years ago the Sahara Desert and the Middle East were a lush forest. What SUVs were they driving and what factories were they using coal and oil which causes it to change? During the Revolutionary War, New York harbor froze over so you could walk all the way across. That year was known as "the year without a summer". Weather patterns change.
In the 70's I remember reading and doing a school project on a TIME article about "global freezing" which stated that the world would soon end due to all the food crops being frozen over. Then later it turned to "global warming". Now it's "global climate change".
Till a few years ago, science was "positive" that the only life on Earth came from the Sun. Then they found those tube worms and crab at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge eating the chemicals leeched from the vents. Till a few years ago, science thought that the Earth was unique. Now they've found hundreds of planet like Earth around the universe that may support life. It's amazing what we learn everyday. I personally can't wait till tomorrow to see what we've learn next.

The weather man can't tell me exactly what the weather will be in two days, let alone 200 years. It's based on models of what happened previously, i.e. an educated guess. Mother nature is a B***H. She'll take care of it, with or without our help.

Feel free to rip me a new one but please keep the words small so I can keep up seeing that I'm just a dumb redneck!!!!! Popcorn is ready to go.
Sorry for the post steal.

Well said Chris, you expressed my sentiments almost to the "T". To me there is no excuse to use a cover pic like that. Imagine how the victims and their loved ones must feel seeing something like that, let alone the rest of us who have some semblance of decency left. Whatever their motivations are for using it, it looks like it is backfiring because from what I'm hearing many retailers are refusing to put it on their shelves, and rightly so. And yes, Rolling Stone magazine has an agenda and has for a very long time. It's a leftist rag under the guise of a "music magazine".

As far as "man made global warming" is concerned? In my mind, it's a tool, a "crisis" being used to gain control over the populace and make some frauds very rich, including the government. Yes, the climate is changing as it has since Earth's time began, but human's involvement is miniscule at best and inconsequential in the "big picture".

"What SUVs were they driving"

Hey, Fred Flinstone had the "Escalade" of the Stone Age, I saw it on TV...

[Lady Quagga]

As an aside: to the "deep thinkers" here that understand science so well. 1000 years ago I would've been called crazy to say the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. 500 years ago you would have called me crazy to say that the world was round. 100 years ago I would have been called crazy to say that man would fly through the air. That was "known science" was it not?

For the three examples you've mentioned, can you tell me who the most vociferous opponents to these ideas would have been? Laypersons? Religious leaders? Other scientists?

Thousands of years ago the Sahara Desert and the Middle East were a lush forest. What SUVs were they driving and what factories were they using coal and oil which causes it to change? During the Revolutionary War, New York harbor froze over so you could walk all the way across. That year was known as "the year without a summer". Weather patterns change.
In the 70's I remember reading and doing a school project on a TIME article about "global freezing" which stated that the world would soon end due to all the food crops being frozen over. Then later it turned to "global warming". Now it's "global climate change".

There is an interesting short essay on what would happen if there was a 90-degree shift in the position of continents. This is a radical version of what happens when there is a shift in the Earth's access - the reason why the Sahara as experienced the climate changes it has. Science ultimately can explain why meteorological phenomenon occur. That our current scientific knowledge can't predict with 100% certainty what will happen within a given timeframe does not discount current scientific theory. Nor does it discount theories of human effects on global climate change. If even a major geological event causes just incremental changes globally, what would make certain folks think human effects would be any less gradual?

Till a few years ago, science was "positive" that the only life on Earth came from the Sun. Then they found those tube worms and crab at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge eating the chemicals leeched from the vents. Till a few years ago, science thought that the Earth was unique. Now they've found hundreds of planet like Earth around the universe that may support life. It's amazing what we learn everyday. I personally can't wait till tomorrow to see what we've learn next.

Those wonderful critters living at the bottom of the ocean came from the Sun. All terrestrial life, and indeed the Earth itself, came from the Sun. Just because they don't rely on photosynthesis doesn't mean they don't originate from the Sun.

And you will find that scientists have theorized about the existence of life-sustaining planets for quite a long time, not just "a few years ago". In a galaxy of several hundred billion stars, they considered it mathematically improbable that the Earth was one of a kind. They simply hadn't found them, because they didn't have the tools. What's interesting is that most of the criticism regarding life-sustaining exoplanets came not from other scientists, but from the religious community.

[HawgZWylde]

For the three examples you've mentioned, can you tell me who the most vociferous opponents to these ideas would have been? Laypersons? Religious leaders? Other scientists?



There is an interesting short essay on what would happen if there was a 90-degree shift in the position of continents. This is a radical version of what happens when there is a shift in the Earth's access - the reason why the Sahara as experienced the climate changes it has. Science ultimately can explain why meteorological phenomenon occur. That our current scientific knowledge can't predict with 100% certainty what will happen within a given timeframe does not discount current scientific theory. Nor does it discount theories of human effects on global climate change. If even a major geological event causes just incremental changes globally, what would make certain folks think human effects would be any less gradual?



Those wonderful critters living at the bottom of the ocean came from the Sun. All terrestrial life, and indeed the Earth itself, came from the Sun. Just because they don't rely on photosynthesis doesn't mean they don't originate from the Sun.

And you will find that scientists have theorized about the existence of life-sustaining planets for quite a long time, not just "a few years ago". In a galaxy of several hundred billion stars, they considered it mathematically improbable that the Earth was one of a kind. They simply hadn't found them, because they didn't have the tools. What's interesting is that most of the criticism regarding life-sustaining exoplanets came not from other scientists, but from the religious community.

"shift in the Earth's access"

shift in the Earth's AXIS. (fify)

This is something I agree with. And if there was indeed absolute proof of human involvement in "climate change", then why did certain leading climate change scientists feel the need to doctor scientific study results?

Uhm, maybe this needs to be in another thread though...

[Lady Quagga]

"shift in the Earth's access"

shift in the Earth's AXIS. (fify)

Gah, absolutely terrible typo. My bad.

This is something I agree with. And if there was indeed absolute proof of human involvement in "climate change", then why did certain leading climate change scientists feel the need to doctor scientific study results?

Uhm, maybe this needs to be in another thread though...

Interpreting data in order to promote one's own theory can be a self-defeating action, particularly with something as politically charged and polarizing as climate change. When one is presented with the results of any research, a discerning scientist naturally asks, "Que bono?" What political, financial, and scientific interests are at stake here? If those interests are in conflict with one another, who is to say which one should prevail?