Dem US Senate hopeful in Mass. didn’t claim minority status on law school file, application - The Washington Post

actonesceneone · 15 days

I would actually watch the one without special effects.

Shepherd13 · 16 days

He is free to talk about his life, wasted or not, with respect to religion. He is not free to talk about other people's lives wrt religion. That's pretty much hate speech.

Will_Power · 27 days

Could I just comment that your request has nothing to do with being skeptical of Man Made Catastrophic Global Warming? By Catastrophic, I specifically mean "something that we should be very concerned about, as it will cause a large degree of harm to humans or the environment if we do not address it with either elimination or mitigation".

To be skeptical of something, you do not have to prove something else to be true. Specifically, I agree the climate has and will continue to change and that some of that change will be due to human activities. I agree that it has warmed recently. I agree that humans, through industrial activity, are putting CO2 into the air (at a greater rate than what would occur naturally). I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I agree that greenhouse gasses, in general, increase the warming effect of the atmosphere (a simplification of the process, but reasonable enough to leave it there). I agree that CO2 causes, in general, warming.

What I question is the massive (as in a multiple of +3 or more, net) feedbacks in the climate system. This is the part that has not been justified to many, including me. It is a bone of contention that exists between climate scientists and other scientists from related disciplines that self-describe as "believers in global warming" or "accepting of global warming".

To shift the discussion away from the key argument will either result in the wrong discussion being held (which brings us further away from the truth) or a lack of common ground on which to communicate.

somethinginteresting · 27 days

Lots of chatter in other subreddits too. Interesting and unexpected stuff.

_Jackie_Treehorn_ · 28 days

be sure to wipe everything down after you're done. Mr. Lo works up a lather that is purportedly 32% chicken stock.

_Jackie_Treehorn_ · 28 days

Buck seventy

http://www.bio27.com/tag/coolio-weight

islamicatheist · 28 days

Voter ID's is bigger government. I thought we were against that.

SoConSubreddit · 28 days

That jumps though a lot of assumption hoops to get to "NAZI".

Maybe it would be best to understand first -- media matters is attempting to check and verify a very narrow wedge of reporting -- if the reporting is accurate (in their case, reporting from the "news and commentary by the press which presents viewpoints that tend to overly promote...a conservative, Christian-influenced ideology,"), media matters has nothing to report.

So, yes, they target a particular area for fact checking, but I do not think that makes them NAZIs.

TansyPants · 28 days

The story you share is a beautiful gift that you give back to the community.

Speaking for everyone here (with zero authority to do so), we are here to learn and teach as best we can. To see your progress and hear that we helped to bring you back on course is so wonderful.

Many thanks for sharing this.

Mojobee · 1 month

I may want/believe/desire square wheels to work on my penny farthing, but science tells me I will get further with round ones.

There are many ways to say it, but your existence is most likely due to the fact that some-sort-of science prevented one of your ancestors from being killed anywhere between childbirth and adolescence.

canucksluo · 1 month

Former catholic, present atheist.

I agree, not fair to answer for others. I'm genuinely curious about how modern adults make sense of Christianity in a world such as ours.

thirdeyeimages · 1 month

Shoulder drool is always an unpleasant surprise.

Mrleibniz · 1 month

Title could be better, but upvote for pastry induced trauma.

thingsbreak · 1 month

Mca?

You must have swallowed a politician.

The mwp was around long before Mann and the hockey stick.

If you are implying that the mwp has no bearing on the understanding of our current climate, I will await your conceding the point.

State clearly and without equivocation that themwp was global, concurrent and warmer than present, and we'll end that part of the discussion. Of course, there would be some follow up...

Until then, I leave you to you politics and careful wordsmithing. Good night.

thingsbreak · 1 month

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/rhxmz/skeptics_and_media_misrepresenting_recent_paper/c46zeiy

You say it is asynchronous.

I, and the real skeptics, say "something happened that leads us down the path of better understanding the mwp."

Stop straw manning. This is good evidence on the trail to understanding the mwp and is consistent with what we were previously taught about climate, before tree ring proxies. All of us can agree with the author's caveat and also say this is consistent with a global mwp, but requires more study and refinement to confirm.

SweetAffairs84 · 1 month

Very pretty. I'm sure they will be impressed.

I know you were not asking, but mixing up the colors would give it a really artistic vibe.

nuclear_is_good · 1 month

What is my misinterpretation? I interpret it as "the event happened, but we don't know enough yet to say precisely when".

How is that:

A misinterpretation
Not supportive of a global mwp

Remember, the most unsupportive findings of a global mwp would either be:

There was no warming event, or
We can confirm the timing of any warming is wrong for concurrent global mwp

thingsbreak · 1 month

So can you 100%, without doubt, confirm absolutely from the study that the timing is asynchronous?

If not, then your previous comment is false, or at the very least misleading.

The study found that the event happened, but cannot at present confirm or deny that it was asynchronous. That is a lovely step forward in an effort to understand the extent of the mwp. The next obvious step would be to better understand the timing of such an event.

You make some rather presumptuous statements above that you know the timing is completely off, then go on to demonstrate how wrong such a statement is by quoting the study "lacks temporal resolution". Do you agree that you cannot claim the timing is right or wrong for concurrence with mwp?

thingsbreak · 1 month

Can you demonstrate, from this paper, that the past warming events are asynchronous?

nuclear_is_good · 1 month

I don't disagree that it is insufficient to link up time-wise.

But that was never the point. Trying to make it the point would be wrong, on your part.

Context - right back at ya.

thingsbreak · 1 month

The record, in this very confined context, is that the findings support mwp. They do not confirm it (specifically in the timing aspect), but do support it.

Do you understand that this is what skeptics of Mann and team are stating? Because it seems you don't.

somethinginteresting

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login