March for Science

[cableok]

i think it is great that there were over 500 marches that were supposed to promote science on Earth Day.

I wish I would of marched today because I would like to help promote science. Because walking around in the street helps the understanding of science. I think I would have marched with a sign that said "I love science. Science taught me there are two sexes".

 

[NeekReevers]

The movie PCU was on the other morning. When they made it it was a comedy. Now it should be classified as a documentary. When are the math and social studies marches? I'm sure a lot of kids will participate if it gets them out of their math and social studies classes.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

i think it is great that there were over 500 marches that were supposed to promote science on Earth Day.

I wish I would of marched today because I would like to help promote science. Because walking around in the street helps the understanding of science. I think I would have marched with a sign that said "I love science. Science taught me there are two sexes".

The "progressive" theory is that there are two sexes but that gender identity is not a biological construct but a social construct and they identify 32 different gender "identities" (they one-upped Baskin Robbins). Of course there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that gender is a social construct.

 

[JimmyBob]

Of course there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that gender is a social construct.

Agree, but you're talking about the "real" world vs. la-la-landers "tiptoeing through the tulips". They'll create fake evidence to support the narrative and, well you know the rest of the story......

And, so appropriate for the narrative:

 

[SMemmett]

Is there anything any of you all would march for?

 

[imprimis]

Is there anything any of you all would march for?

Yes. I'd march behind a line of liberal PC SJW pro-illegal immigrant anti-free speech dogooders as they jump off the end of a pier into the mouths of waiting Great White Sharks.

 

[MegaPoke]

Is there anything any of you all would march for?

Fathers rights.

 

[CowboyPhil]

At what point would fathers have rights?

Conception?
Heartbeat?
20 weeks?
Survivability outside the womb?
Birth?

Just curious.

 

[MegaPoke]

At what point would fathers have rights?

Conception?
Heartbeat?
20 weeks?
Survivability outside the womb?
Birth?

Just curious.

Was referring more to family court and the anti father divorce industry built around custody fights.

But yes, fathers should have a say in women aborting their babies.

 

[MegaPoke]

 

[wyomingosualum]

Is there anything any of you all would march for?

Is there an OU SUCKS march planned anytime soon? Somebody keep me in the loop. I'll drive the thousand miles to participate.

 

[CowboyPhil]

OK. I agree.

I imagine divorce court is ugly and then compounded a million times when kids are involved.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Is there an OU SUCKS march planned anytime soon? Somebody keep me in the loop. I'll drive the thousand miles to participate.

@Medic007 Glad you don't take that sort of thing personally.

 

[Medic007]

@Medic007 Glad you don't take that sort of thing personally.

Lol. I hate OU fans too.

 

[Been Jammin]

This belongs in this thread.

http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-most-important-words-video-2017-4


p.s. you should take the time to watch the video. It is only 4 minutes long- for those of you with short attention spans.

 

[NeekReevers]

The problem is that science isn't as cut and dried as Tyson tries to make it out to be. What happened to the hole in the ozone that was going to cook us all when I was a kid? How many times have dietary recommendations been changed? The list is endless. Science and scientific theories change and evolve over time and they should always be questioned.

I don't know what to believe with respect to global warming because I don't trust either side. Both sides are simply trying to push their agenda not produce scientific facts. The answer to the questions will make and cost certain parties trillions of dollars and that's really what this debate has been and will always be about. Do you think scientists that produced results favorable to the Obama administration's policies were more or less likely to get their grants extended? Do you think the opposite is true now? I also don't understand how you can predict a long term or permanent warming trend from 20 or even 100 years of data when the earth is millions of years old.

As per usual there is no common sense with respect to politics. We should be working to reduce carbon emissions regardless of whether or not it is causing global warming. The only questions is how fast and drastic do we force change. One side wants to ignore it so they can maximize profits and the other side wants us common folk to go back to horse and buggies while they fly around in private jets to save the planet.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[Been Jammin]

View embedded media

View embedded media

That is one of the most moronic points I have seen on this board.

Liberals don't want to bring any specific group of people into this country. I can't speak for all liberals, but I have never heard one claim that the U.S. needs an infusion of people from X country so that Y will improve within the U.S.

If the map is accurate, it means absolutely nothing when it comes to bringing bright minds into this country. If the average IQ in the Congo is one of the lowest in the world, it does not mean that there are not individuals there who will be integral in pioneering the first drive system that allows humans to reach other planets significantly faster than we currently can.

Doesn't it make sense that due to poverty, and generalized suffering within those countries, there is a higher percentage of individuals who don't have access to education and/or don't get appropriate nutrition as babies (or prior to birth) to allow for improved brain development? Those things would lower the average IQ. Should an IQ test be part of our vetting procedures? "Sorry. We understand that you are seeking asylum because the leaders of your country are committing mass genocide against your people, but you aren't smart enough to come here. Sucks to be you".

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

This belongs in this thread.

http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-most-important-words-video-2017-4


p.s. you should take the time to watch the video. It is only 4 minutes long- for those of you with short attention spans.

This guy has said/Tweeted almost as many stupid things as Trump.

 

[NZ Poke]

That is one of the most moronic points I have seen on this board.

Liberals don't want to bring any specific group of people into this country. I can't speak for all liberals, but I have never heard one claim that the U.S. needs an infusion of people from X country so that Y will improve within the U.S.

If the map is accurate, it means absolutely nothing when it comes to bringing bright minds into this country. If the average IQ in the Congo is one of the lowest in the world, it does not mean that there are not individuals there who will be integral in pioneering the first drive system that allows humans to reach other planets significantly faster than we currently can.

Doesn't it make sense that due to poverty, and generalized suffering within those countries, there is a higher percentage of individuals who don't have access to education and/or don't get appropriate nutrition as babies (or prior to birth) to allow for improved brain development? Those things would lower the average IQ. Should an IQ test be part of our vetting procedures? "Sorry. We understand that you are seeking asylum because the leaders of your country are committing mass genocide against your people, but you aren't smart enough to come here. Sucks to be you".

There are specific reasons why elites on the left want to import low IQ cultures into the west.

- Leftist politicians are guaranteed to receive votes for life in exchange for paying low IQ immigrants welfare (we have an incredible amount of immigrants on welfare -- see below)

- It's easy to pit low IQ groups against each other and 'the rich' (one of the oldest political tactics, from Julius Caesar, to Machiveli, to Lenin and Trotsky, through the 1960s cultural Marxists)

- It breaks up the cultural fabric of society, and creates a need for more government programs (politician job security) to 'hold society together'

- More 'diversity' makes it harder for certain groups to stand out, who want to blend in

 

[Been Jammin]

There are specific reasons why elites on the left want to import low IQ cultures into the west.

- Leftist politicians are guaranteed to have votes for life in exchange for paying low IQ immigrants through welfare (we have an incredible amount of immigrants who receive welfare)

- It's easy to pit low IQ groups against each other and 'the rich' (one of the oldest political tactics, from Julius Caesar, to Machiveli, to Lenin and Trotsky, through the 1960s cultural Marxists)

- It breaks up the cultural fabric of society, and creates a need for more government programs to 'hold society together'

- More 'diversity' makes it harder for certain groups to stand out, who want to blend in

View embedded media

 

[CowboyPhil]

I call bullshit on the chart anyways. You mean to tell me they tested all of the billions of chinese and indian populations?
I'm guessing like a lot of polls they took whatever numbers were given to them by those countries and extrapolated and got a mess.
Just like the last election proved, polls are almost worthless because of the miniscule sampling of data.

And I'll agree with BJ in that I haven't heard/seen any liberals pushing for certain immigrants to enter the US. They mainly want anyone who'll vote D

 

[JonnyVito]

I learned one thing in this thread. China, will run this world if they can keep corruption from ruining their government. They get that having a smart population equals winning the long game. America use to have this then the 70's happen and they have never recovered. depressing.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I call bullshit on the chart anyways. You mean to tell me they tested all of the billions of chinese and indian populations?
I'm guessing like a lot of polls they took whatever numbers were given to them by those countries and extrapolated and got a mess.
Just like the last election proved, polls are almost worthless because of the miniscule sampling of data.

And I'll agree with BJ in that I haven't heard/seen any liberals pushing for certain immigrants to enter the US. They mainly want anyone who'll vote D

LOL,look through the guy's twitter feed. Plainly it's another highly acccurate source of NZ's. He prefers to get his information from occult writers, neo-Nazis, people that still live with Mom,etc.

 

[NZ Poke]

IQ chart by nation, with background info:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#


Leftists don't like IQ because it goes against their anti-scientific / anti-evolution narrative that all cultures are equal..


Consider: many celebrities and public figures promised to leave the US if Trump won the election.

None wanted to move to a low IQ nation (only high IQ nations). Why?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Is there anything any of you all would march for?

Hell no that's embarrassing.

 

[Been Jammin]

Consider: many celebrities and public figures promised to leave the US if Trump won the election.

None wanted to move to a low IQ nation (only high IQ). Why?

Seriously? You really don't know the answer to that question? Maybe because they are 3rd world countries (or surrounded by 3rd world countries?). Less natural resources. More droughts. More poverty. Less chances at economic success.

Basically, living closer to the equator is a huge disadvantage on this planet.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Seriously? You really don't know the answer to that question? Maybe because they are 3rd world countries (or surrounded by 3rd world countries?). Less natural resources. More droughts. More poverty. Less chances at economic success.

Basically, living closer to the equator is a huge disadvantage on this planet.

Oh quit fighting it. Just enjoy the supremacy. If you would just set down the moral and scientific approach, it feels really good to be so exceptional with such stupid people everywhere else.

Right NZ? We're better than all those third world countries? As a corollary to that, you're better than them too, right?

 

[aix_xpert]

Was it a march for Science or a march against Trump? I'm having trouble telling the difference between the pro-science march, and the pro-women's march, and the pro-immigrant march. All the signs and news coverage looks (and says) exactly the same things.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[Medic007]

"Settled science" allows for accurate predictions to be made. A few examples...

Heat, fuel, and oxygen can produce a fire. Striking a match, then holding it to a sheet of newspaper in a room with a normal atmosphere will result in the newspaper catching fire.

An airplane flies because of lift generated by wings and the air moving across them. If you remove lift, plane will fall out of the sky.

If a person eats 20,000 calories per day without any means of burning all of those calories, he/she will gain massive amounts of weight.

These are all examples of "settled science." If climate science is so "settled," why can't the climate science folks accurately predict anything? I'd be more apt to jump on board if they could accurately predict one single thing. Just one.

 

[aix_xpert]

Settled Science is called a "law". Such things as the "law of Gravity". Unsettled science are called theories. Even accepted science such as the "theory of relativity" isn't actually settled. And there are hundreds (thousands?) of scientists out trying to prove the theory of relativity wrong. Noone calls these people "quacks" or "cooks" or "deniers". They are called scientists. But if you question any of the statements regarding global warming, you are labeled as any or all of the above, and are immediately defunded of any of your government grant opportunities. For whatever reason, its the only science that refuses to subject itself to non-believer review. This entire segment of science has become more religion than science, in that its peer-review is only performed by other believers, and any questioning of its principles or findings is met with contempt rather than real scientific curiosity.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

This is pretty good: http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/0...march-for-science/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget

 

[Medic007]

Settled Science is called a "law". Such things as the "law of Gravity". Unsettled science are called theories. Even accepted science such as the "theory of relativity" isn't actually settled. And there are hundreds (thousands?) of scientists out trying to prove the theory of relativity wrong. Noone calls these people "quacks" or "cooks" or "deniers". They are called scientists. But if you question any of the statements regarding global warming, you are labeled as any or all of the above, and are immediately defunded of any of your government grant opportunities. For whatever reason, its the only science that refuses to subject itself to non-believer review. This entire segment of science has become more religion than science, in that its peer-review is only performed by other believers, and any questioning of its principles or findings is met with contempt rather than real scientific curiosity.

Precisely. Well stated.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Precisely. Well stated.

So are there any compelling arguments that back up the thesis of carbon-caused climate change?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Seriously? You really don't know the answer to that question? Maybe because they are 3rd world countries (or surrounded by 3rd world countries?). Less natural resources. More droughts. More poverty. Less chances at economic success.

Basically, living closer to the equator is a huge disadvantage on this planet.

Whoa whoa whoa less natural resources?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Settled Science is called a "law". Such things as the "law of Gravity". Unsettled science are called theories. Even accepted science such as the "theory of relativity" isn't actually settled. And there are hundreds (thousands?) of scientists out trying to prove the theory of relativity wrong. Noone calls these people "quacks" or "cooks" or "deniers". They are called scientists. But if you question any of the statements regarding global warming, you are labeled as any or all of the above, and are immediately defunded of any of your government grant opportunities. For whatever reason, its the only science that refuses to subject itself to non-believer review. This entire segment of science has become more religion than science, in that its peer-review is only performed by other believers, and any questioning of its principles or findings is met with contempt rather than real scientific curiosity.

This is better articulated than my 7th grade teacher but he also taught us real scientists believe nothing is settled.

 

[aix_xpert]

So are there any compelling arguments that back up the thesis of carbon-caused climate change?

There are. But there are also significant questions regarding these thesis that haven't been adequately explained. But raising these questions makes us "quacks" (per the last president). And having a compelling argument does not settled science make.

 

[Medic007]

So are there any compelling arguments that back up the thesis of carbon-caused climate change?

Have any of their predictions come true yet? There's still ice in the Arctic. That was supposed to be gone by 2013. Snow was supposed to be a thing of the past. The coasts were supposed to be underwater. We were supposed to have an ice age that would kill off all of our crops and when the ice age didn't happen, then we were supposed to have incredible heat and continuous droughts that would turn Americans into climate refugees. Nebraska was supposed to be a barren wasteland desert by now (by 1996 actually). Monster tornadoes becoming more frequent, hurricanes of never before seen frequency and size. Pacific and Caribbean islands are supposed to be underwater now displacing tens of millions.

Surely this settled climate change science can get something right. I mean, it is settled, right? I can predict all sorts of things based on settled science. Why can't they? Just one?

Hopefully I answered your question sir.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Have any of their predictions come true yet?

There's still ice in the Arctic. That was supposed to be gone by 2013.

Snow was supposed to be a thing of the past. The coasts were supposed to be underwater.

We were supposed to have an ice age that would kill off all of our crops and when the ice age didn't happen, then we were supposed to have incredible heat and continuous droughts that would turn Americans into climate refugees.

Nebraska was supposed to be a barren wasteland desert by now (by 1996 actually).

Monster tornadoes becoming more frequent, hurricanes of never before seen frequency and size.

Pacific and Caribbean islands are supposed to be underwater now displacing tens of millions.

Surely this settled climate change science can get something right. I mean, it is settled, right? I can predict all sorts of things based on settled science. Why can't they? Just one?

Hopefully I answered your question sir.

Wow -- maybe I'm a skeptic, too then! That's very compelling!

Can I have the cites that establish all that stuff as settled science?