basurihn

Thanks for looking that up. Experience tells me (s)he isn't really interested in your sources though. His/her opinion is already formed. I can tell by the tone and use of selective excerpts.

(S)he'll just quote different sources supporting her argument, all from politically motivated bodies. Your sources will never be good enough.

My advice is to let them scream in the wind and think they've scored points somehow. They'll figure it out by 40 or continue to be someone's useful idiot.

It's more complex than that. There is only one racial side here... there is no other side that believes black lives DON'T matter.

Opinions are complex... Philando Castille certainly did not deserve death, although to say his murder is a symptom of epidemic racism is shortsighted and representative of narrow statistical exposure. Cops get away with murdering white people too.

We would be better off preaching color blind unity and stop blaming white people for the inevitable effects of high crime, police-xenophobic neighborhoods. Particularly where demonizing white people is ok. Cops working in those areas have a hard job. You have no idea.

We don't live in 1968 anymore, or even 1988. I realize there are many living today who did go through terrible times. There are also quite a few racists still around. But Black Lives Matter's finger-pointing at innocents is making more racists.

You can't help where you're born. No one likes to be punished for the sins of the father.

You aren't helping.

Or simply an increase in fat.

So would Mr. Xu have received the same negative public feedback if he had avoided the ground and pound, and won without perceived brutality?

I'm having difficulty seeing how this fight could have happened without either some form of KO/TKO, which I assume would have generated the same outrage, or degenerating into a farcical slapfest, which would have lost Xu face anyway.

Am I wrong? Or would Xu have killed a sacred cow no matter how he won? Because let's face it, it was clearly Xu's fight to lose. Xu should just come to America then, we have different sacred cows here.

Traditional martial arts can be quite effective if practiced in an effective manner. I've been to traditional schools where the pinnacle of training involved fighting each other bare knuckle.

As amusing as it would be to see a tai chi practitioner systematically progressing to bare knuckle tai chi sparring, perhaps their art could be more effective if it were trained more aggressively.

You meet Royce? Cool! Sorry to hear he's an asshole. I admit there's some vestigial hero worship when I hear his name.

Not surprised at all to learn he's got a God complex though. I would have loved to see him matched up against some of the new blood, like Wonder Boy. Might have helped with his God complex. That's in fantasy territory now, I guess, like imaginary Bruce Lee matchups.

Do you really think its more the lack of groundfighting in kung fu that makes them helpless? Or their "gentler" training style? I've fought some hapkido guys back before groundfighting got big who had no problem with takedown defense. You'd get rocked with a back kick or a knee to the head unless you nailed the takedown.

I remember how ubiquitous it was in Michigan as well. I grow it here in central Wisconsin, but it doesn't seem part of the cultural landscape as in Michigan.

It also makes tremendous wine, especially when blended with Grigio.

Dansgaard-Oerscher cycles?

Yes. Cook.

Most STEM people are honest? No. Having worked decades as an engineer, sometimes over scientists, I can tell you that STEM people are just as susceptible to human frailty and peer pressure as any other group. Some of them dont need help to be dishonest.

I posit that none of you have any daily experience with science, otherwise you'd appreciate that 95 percent of PhDs dare not stand up against the groupthink. You would also appreciate how much if clumate science is total garbage.

What an echo chamber. Thankfully, the political pressure to accept climate orthodoxy is currently waning.

And i give a damn about your downvotes, or your unqualified replies.

Actually, 90 percent of medical studies are pretty much horseshit.

Source http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...

Or ask a good cardiologist after a few drinks.

The closer you get to the source, the more you find out just how much we delude ourselves about what we know.

Sometimes BOTH sides have a hidden agenda.

The contention depends on the sphere. Whilst the laypeople battle out A and B, there are other issues...

C. What is the climates degree of sensitivity to CO2? How MUCH impact? Any PhD who tells you they know this is a kook or charlatan. Source - I dated a climate scientist. Take it with what salt you must, go read Curry if it won't offend your orthodoxy.

D. What is the climates degree of sensitivity to anything, for that matter.

I'm sure the red team is at best controlled by a hostile minority, just like the blue team.

We're doubly fucked if climate change is in a anthropogenic positive feedback loop but its caused by something else like water vapor. Good luck getting red or blue to discover something like that. Both sides are children.

So when its colder than average, is that proof negative?

There is no they. The climate science community is not united.

Ok. Two screaming kids... while i don't have time to find the direct sources of scientific comment, they should be referenced in the following article about Hansen's 2015 paper.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/

Lol. Don't read the comments, while i find judith to be above board, many of her fans are definitely rabid troglodytes.

Heard and agreed. Somewhere i have quotes from his peers on the topic. Those are the fastest i could find in a rush. Will look tonight.

And the sequel:https://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbou...

If you want an initial overview without all the hype, try:http://www.amplifier.gatech.edu/contributors/blogs/posts/201...

James Hansen is the Doctor Oz of climate change. Dude will release study after study before they hit peer review. He's a god damn charlatan.

https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-l...

I made no claim that I wish you accepted at face value. So as far as i understand, you must be referring to bills claim. Otherwise, to which claim are you referring?

Assuming it is bills claim to ehich you refer, if you don't understand the context, how can it be a claim?

So... you did understand what he said, and are assuming he's hostile? This seems to contradict that you were asking honest feedback.

He may have inferred from your tone a common algorithm:

1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. 2. Ask for sources. 3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources. 4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile. 5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.

I'm sure if you were at all open to his point, you could really figure it out.

For some definition of high-skill, anyway.

Literal numbers that are unproportionally skewed by two overpowered population centers. It isn't just about proportionally capturing the interest of the individual voter. That individual voter in each state represents a sum total of different interests than a individual voter in another region of the States.

California and New York have different exports and interests than say, Wisconsin.

You would feel quite different about granting power to overpopulated areas if they were conservative rednecks, wouldn't you? Of course you would.

I supervise "hard" scientists for a living... or did, up until a couple of years ago. You'd be surprised what a few try to pull, without the aid of a vast conspiracy.

But there is one to silence climate moderates.

The evidence is abundant. You have to actually look for it though. It won't fall in your lap. And providing you with it will probably only get me more nonsequiturs and naysaying, as all you have to do is start with the parent link, which you have already summarily dismissed without qualifications.

When you stop guessing at your opposition's motivations and listen to them, I can resume this conversation with you. No more nonsequiturs and guesswork.

What argument? You asked me what the likelihood would need to be.

You mean the seat belt argument? The cost to society of reducing co2 emissions exceeds the cost of a seatbelt by a factor of several billion.. even trillion.

A nearby star could explode and kill us all. Should we figure out how likely that is before spending trillions to fix it?

Did you mean answer your question about what the odds would need to be? I would first need to see the rhetoric tuned down a bit, some listening to minority researchers first. Considering the effort spent in silencing them, the whole thing stinks to high hell.

Who else but phds have credibility in climate science, other than perhaps phds in another hard science? Some citizen advocate? Please. If we had this nonsense in medical science eggs would be illegal by now.

Did you read those opposing phd opinions yet?

I'm not sure how you know that, given that none but the most doctor ozish of climate scientists (Hansen and ilk) will claim the doomsday scenarios are likely. Even then, other climate scientists will quickly repudiate such claims. As they have.

All fields have their attention whores and serial exaggerators. They are better ignored.

Or perhaps you are referring to the opinions of advocates or true believers? Those opinions, unfortunately, saturate the media.

As with any controversial science, a reading of the contrasting opinions of phds would do you far better.

Research institutions did a pretty poor job of telling us cholesterol consumption causes atherosclerosis. Largely because we discounted minority scientific opinion.