things you just dont understand
- Thread starter septango
- Start date
Naesaki
JRPG Fanatic
I'll never shave off my body hair, I'm damn proud of it, and my beard :3 only thing that would willingly make me shave my body hair is for medical reasons or if it was for charity / a special cause
Now hold on a tick. I'm definitely a newbie, but on a furry forum being relatively normal can make you come across as cocky when compared to about half the intro posts I've seen. I'm not the sort to act like I'm an anime character or a small fluffy animal in the way I post; that just isn't my nature. What exactly defines cockiness in a new member?
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Eh, I hate having body hair, because it makes me feel hairy and ugly.
As a hairy bearded manly man, I am glad to have found a kindred spirit.
CarbonCoal
Digital Artist
Why some people think that being autistic means you are idiotic, lack all common sense and have no idea what you're talking about.
People who try to push their beliefs onto other people religious or not.
Why homophobic people act like gay people being happy means the world is coming to an end.Why be so worried about who other people are kissing?What does that have anything to do with your life?
Some women's obsession with shoes.I never understood the need to have over hundreds of different shoes.I would only ever have one pair of each shoe type if needed,sandals,sneakers and flat dress shoes for weddings and funerals.
Why some people assume that just because you like something in fiction must mean that you like it real life too.
Why some furries\bronies say that their fandom is better than the other fandom because it's filled with nice people.They say this as they continue to bash the other fandom and use stereotypes and spread other false rumors about them all to make their fandom seem superior than the other.
Why some people think that being a vergin means your a looser and you're still a virgin because you can't get anyone to have sex with you.No I'm a virgin because I'm not interested in having sex and have I ever been interested.
People who try to push their beliefs onto other people religious or not.
Why homophobic people act like gay people being happy means the world is coming to an end.Why be so worried about who other people are kissing?What does that have anything to do with your life?
Some women's obsession with shoes.I never understood the need to have over hundreds of different shoes.I would only ever have one pair of each shoe type if needed,sandals,sneakers and flat dress shoes for weddings and funerals.
Why some people assume that just because you like something in fiction must mean that you like it real life too.
Why some furries\bronies say that their fandom is better than the other fandom because it's filled with nice people.They say this as they continue to bash the other fandom and use stereotypes and spread other false rumors about them all to make their fandom seem superior than the other.
Why some people think that being a vergin means your a looser and you're still a virgin because you can't get anyone to have sex with you.No I'm a virgin because I'm not interested in having sex and have I ever been interested.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525 ... but science isn't perfect.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/clari...rming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder ... and, as we all well know, if your reason to lie is "good" enough, then you will use "science" to "prove" it.
http://io9.com/five-science-facts-you-learned-at-school-that-are-plain-1653589805 ... not to mention what you "learned" in school.
Rassah
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why Canadians don't support climate change. I would love to move up north, but it's just SO COLD there! If the temp went up a bit, Canada could become one of the world's top agricultural producers and beach resorts (on top of being one of the world's oil producers), while US would become like Africa, and about as religiously bass akwards.
Oh, I believe in climate change... I just don't believe the government/media hype that it's "mankind's fault." Because the planet's climate has changed back and forth from glacial to swelter for the sum total of its existence, which includes the time long before humanity was on the scene. Ever heard of the carbon cycle? You know, the whole "plants breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen... animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide?
And then, we have this... yes, the earth has been hot before. But then, you know what? It cooled down again!
And then, we have this bit of science ... funny, isn't it, how the earth is able to "take care of itself"... right?
To be blunt, I'm not so arrogant as to assume everything is "me"... so I will not accept the media "guilt" thrown at humanity for "climate change". Because I recognize that the earth is a dynamic, living organism in its own right. And I am just a "flea" on its back.
People driving slow anywhere... or worse yet, driving stupid. Or not "driving" at all, even when they're behind the wheel.
Well I hate to break it to ya.
IPCC Report page 2 said:
How about you read up on the literature hm? Feel free to delve deeper into that report, but this paragraph is literally on page 2 (page 18 in the pdf), summarising their findings.
Last edited:
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I study Geology, so I can comment on this.
The cyclicity in the earth's past climate is prompted by changes in the amount of received solar radiation. This results from changes in earth's orbit, caused by the gravitational tug of the other worlds in our solar system and is known as 'Milankovic cyclicity', after Milankovic, the balkan scientist who figured it out. There are 21ky 41ky 100ky and 400ky cycles all super-imposed on each other.
Carbon dioxide plays an important role as a driver of climate change and is involved in the Milankovic cycles. [because the changes in recieved energy are not enough to explain the amount of variation, and the EPICA and GRIP ice-cores show us that carbon dioxide has been varying lock-step with temperature and the Milankovic cycles]
The existence of astronomic drivers of climate change, like the Milankovic cycles, do not mean that human interference in the carbon cycle will have no effect. It will, and this is why the IPCC, NASA and NERC recognise anthropogenic climate change.
Contrary to your suggestions, there has been a vitriolic campaign by many media outlets to ignore actual scientists and researchers in favour of armchair experts who know nothing about the Earth Sciences and who often have their own vested interests. :\
Just look at this list of Scientific bodies which disagree that human action is changing our climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Dissenting
That's right. None.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Looks like you forgot to click on the link in your own link, with a list of scientist who do disagree. I remember way back when I was a kid, the whole "fear" that we were entering a "new" ice age. And yet, here we are. So, having learned from experience the hype, I simply take this "new" hype over "global warming" as being in the same boat as that whole "Oh, no! We're heading for another ice age!" thing climatologist were spouting way back when. Been there, done that. The "jury" is still out, far as I'm concerned.
In other words, wait and see. Meanwhile: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ ... yeah, discredit it if you wish... but messing with something that ain't broke, well, we all know what can happen. Plus, it just throws a monkey wrench into the whole argument. Me? I just like to keep an open mind. After all, the whole idea of going to the moon was, at one time, considered the highest form of fantasy.
I see you didn't read the paper I linked in my post. :V
edit: Jesus Christ that geoengineringwatch site is almost screaming "chemtrail conspiracy" without outright admitting it... ya know.... with all the pictures of condensation trails from aircraft. :V
edit2: Looks like they do mention it. Wow. Of all the sites you could come up with that conduct and/or report on peer-reviewed research, you source that tosh. :V
edit: Jesus Christ that geoengineringwatch site is almost screaming "chemtrail conspiracy" without outright admitting it... ya know.... with all the pictures of condensation trails from aircraft. :V
edit2: Looks like they do mention it. Wow. Of all the sites you could come up with that conduct and/or report on peer-reviewed research, you source that tosh. :V
Last edited:
Schwimmwagen
Well-Known Member
Aren't we supposed to be headed for some kind of mini ice-age in 2030?
Because of decreasing solar activity? Yes it has been decreasing but temperatures are still increasing.
http://i.imgur.com/yPckSpj.jpg (see the last 25 or so years)
I'm sorta skeptical about the whole new ice age business, I haven't seen any papers personally hypothesising about an event like that.
Last edited:
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
That's a list of individual scientists, not a list of scientific bodies, but I'll digress; the figure at the head of the article you linked says it all: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
The fear about a 'new ice age' was a myth; something like 2 papers in the 70's and 80's expressed concerns about a transient dip in average temperatures, while there was a large number expressing concern about anthropogenic warming, even back then.
The most historically important was Barnola et al 1987 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6138/abs/329408a0.html
They assessed CO2 content in 160,000 years of the vostok Ice core and provided compelling evidence to vindicate Carbon Dioxide's hypothesised role as a driver of climate change.
Barnola et al was a Land Mark.
Keeping an open mind means reading the land mark papers and literature in Climatology before professing to know everything about it. :\
Never professed to know everything about it... however, you seem to think you do. That "science" is a collective, meaning if "everyone" supports it (you are aware where "scientists" get their funding, right?), then it must be true. And did you read far enough in that one link I provided? You know, the one that mentioned how, if you go back in the geologic record about fifteen million years ago, you'll find the earth had the same percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? You know, back when there were no polar ice caps? Mankind wasn't around then, so tell me, where did all that CO2 come from?
Remember, science is all about asking questions... questioning the "status quo". Perhaps it would be more informative if we dug up where else in "history" scientific consensus turned out wrong. Because "consensus" doesn't write TRUTH in stone. And yes, had I the time, I could probably find a better site for the whole geoengineering thing, but hey, if you're trying to play God with the climate, one way or another, whatever or however you do it, you can't be sure what you'll find inside the box. And it's arrogant to think you can effect a predictable change on climate. So, human fault or not, there's no telling where things will go if we start shouting for "solutions" when we have no idea what we're doing.
Remember, in quantum physics, it's "very difficult" to tell the mass or position of a particle at the same time. "Better to observe the tiger than poke it in the eye." So, I'll continue to wait and see. Besides, I won't be alive to really see anything come of this, so it's actually moot. But if you're young, or have kids, I understand the concern. I simply question the response. I think we can do better.
However... I have my doubts. Since so many are not interested in questioning what they hear. So swift to judge those who dissent as "lunatics and crazies". Or whatever descriptor is presently in vogue.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I know enough about climatology to know that your claims are wrong, because climatology is part of my degree course.
My degree course is Geology, so I'm well aware that climate and atmospheric composition have changed through geological time.
CO2 has been an important control on global climate throughout the geological record, by way of the greenhouse effect.
That's why periods like the Cretaceous were so Warm, when volcanic vents liberated huge volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and periods like the Carboniferous became glaciated, as a result of trees fixing carbon into their tissues, such that there was less atmospheric carbon dioxide around to keep the earth so warm.
It's unreasonable to expect that, given we know that CO2 is a major control of our climate, that anthropogenic CO2 contributions significant enough to put as on parity with the Eocene, when the world was a pole-to-pole tropical jungle, will magically have no effect on the modern world.
Science! The systematic disagreement with the status quo, where no ideas are safe!
Here I was thinking it was a process of observation and analysis that requires the successful repetition of observations of natural or experimental phenomena and the analysis of by many, many people in order to draw conclusions about the natural world, where conclusions change or change not over time as understanding of other, related phenomena improve.
That you think scientific consensus being wrong proves your argument shows your misunderstanding of how scientific discovery works.
I'd be happy to provide you a big list of times "scientific consensus turned out wrong."
Here's a short one just because:
Classical Mechanics
General Relativity
The Plumb-Pudding Model
Special Relativity
The Bohr Model
All "wrong" by your understanding. All have been improved upon.
I'm not sure why you think scientific consensus being wrong proves your point. All hypotheses are not suddenly validated because old theories become outdated by new information.
Scientific consensus is formed through acceptance of the application of the scientific method. Nothing new there.
Last edited:
Artillery Spam
Member
You don't really have the chance to "wait and see" when it comes to the extensive myriad of inauspicious dilemmas that Earth's delicate biosphere currently faces.
This is a weakness that all humans are seemingly afflicted with. They seem to only care about the things that they can bear immediate witness to, but the much more sinister problems--which start out diminutive--eventually evolve into problems of gargantuan scale. Once shit strikes the fan, then people want to start drumming up solutions.
But you can't do that with global climate change. Once you reach the tipping point, it's all down hill from there.
Climate change is normal for Earth.
Always has happened.
Always will happen (at least until the Sun becomes a red giant and expands outward to consume our wonderful little ball of dirt and water).
Human-accelerated climate change, however, is not natural.
Oh, I imagine it does have an effect... but man wasn't around fifteen million years ago, and the earth still got hot. And life still survived the experience. So, tell me, where's the "doom and gloom"...? And why have we made the issue so political. Reduce CO2, fine. But that won't keep the volcanos from doing their thing again... you know, as a geologist (not a climatologist, by your own admission), you should be aware of the issue of increased (and recent) volcanic activity. See? Like I said, the earth does as she wills. So, yeah... we could totally stop emitting CO2. But how will we keep the volcanos at bay? I'm certainly not going to worry myself to death over climate change. It happens, even with the best of intentions. And, again, like I said... arrogant to assume we can effect change, when we don't control all the factors. Which you have admitted to in your own words.
So...?
