Special interestChallenge: prove to me that America exists.
      – Lee J Haywood, 2009-10-03 at 09:46:05   (32 comments)

On 2009-10-03 at 09:48:28, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I've never been anywhere near America, and although I've seen some television that claims to be from there I think it could just be manufactured locally. I think it must be a communist plot.
On 2009-10-03 at 17:57:09, BorgClown wrote...
It doesn't. The Chinese blew it last century and it rained as McDonalds all over the world.
On 2009-10-03 at 21:10:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am beginning to wonder myself.
On 2009-10-03 at 21:11:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
I paid taxes to it, therefor it exists.
On 2009-10-03 at 23:49:54, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
I live there.
On 2009-10-03 at 23:50:48, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
I have been to the Pacific ocean on the west side of it, and the Atlantic ocean on the east side of it. I went to the Gulf of Mexico and to Lake Michigan. I am very certain that America is a real country bordering all of those places.
On 2009-10-04 at 00:00:04, BorgClown wrote...
I think Lee tried to show that unless you grab America and hand it to him (or kidnap him and take him to America), you can't prove him that America exists. All your proves are based on personal evidence, but none constitutes an undeniable certainty. Of course, proving than a continent exists is far easier than proving that global warming exists, it is ultimately just locating a land mass and correlating it to other known land masses. Global warming is not an object, but a process, so we can't take it to someone, or someone to it, we can just infer its variables and gradually improve the meteorological models.
On 2009-10-04 at 06:21:52, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
I guess, Lee, that the best thing to do would be to fly here. I would like to point out, however, that a lot of modern history makes no sense unless America exists.
On 2009-10-04 at 07:53:19, BorgClown wrote...
That's the funny part Scarlett: asking for proof that America exists and not wanting to go there and see for yourself is a lot like asking for objective evidence and refusing to review it objectively. If the person you are trying to prove something has already decided that you're wrong, you won't convince him/her.
On 2009-10-04 at 08:01:03, BorgClown wrote...
Back to global warming: It's true that proving something is the responsibility of whoever affirms it, but when your models are incomplete to provide a long-term certainty, the cumulative evidence must be evaluated objectively to prevent a worst-case scenario. You can't simply deny global warming until it becomes impossible to deny, because incomplete models can fail both ways.
On 2009-10-04 at 15:26:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
That is why it is a perfect tool of the left. They can use it to increase the size and power of government, and quench capitalism, without ever proving that it exists. They use indoctrination, innuendo, demagoguery, snipe here snip there, until all of a sudden, yes, we have consensus, so it must be true.
On 2009-10-04 at 16:13:45, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Obviously I was joking when I said that the (illusory) America was a communist plot. It's actually a capitalist plot. And no, I don't plan on trying to go to America until you prove that it exists. Of course none of us wants climate change to be real. We don't want to pay more for our energy. We don't want to change our lifestyles. The US government certainly doesn't believe in it, otherwise they'd be taking sensible steps towards energy independence rather than silly treaties and minor cuts. But again the reality is independent of how we feel about it. We already have shorter, warmer winters. We already have thinning ice sheets and glaciers. We already have an increased frequency of severe weather conditions. There are plenty of changes, but you have to read the scientific press to see the whole picture. The popular press just argues about everyone's personal beliefs and gets no-one anywhere.
On 2009-10-04 at 16:14:29, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You're right that consensus of all these personal opinions counts for nothing. But then we do have a consensus amongst climate scientists, and we do have plenty of individual evidence for change that stack up - regardless of the predictions.
On 2009-10-04 at 17:50:21, BorgClown wrote...
But let's suppose global warming isn't real. Wouldn't it be sensible anyway to use renewable energy sources and reduce urban/suburban pollution? The quality of life of millions of people would rise, as respiratory diseases and allergies reduce.
On 2009-10-04 at 17:52:34, BorgClown wrote...
It would cost more initially, how about reducing the military budget temporarily to ease the change?
On 2009-10-04 at 18:52:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
"But let's suppose global warming isn't real. Wouldn't it be sensible anyway to use renewable energy sources and reduce urban/suburban pollution?" This is what they say when they realize that they cannot prove a goddamn thing. This is not scientific evidence or theory. LeeJ, many of the things that you mention below are reversing because it is getting cooler once again. Yes, I am all for using personal responsibility to do the best I can do to use less energy and am thinking of switching my house to solar power, the cost needs to come down a little more, and I am all over it. I have already installed a more efficient HVAC unit and more insulation. When I have solar power at my house, then I can get me an electric car and charge it for free. I am in the process now of building a total electric powered motorcycle now. A friend of mine has one that is really cool. I will see if I can post a picture of it. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT RAMMING THEIR SHIT DOWN MY THROAT JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT MORE POWER.
On 2009-10-04 at 19:07:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
By the way, do a little research and see which one has the more efficient house, Al Gore, or George Bush. George Bush is personally responsible for building more efficient energy systems in his house/ranch, he doesn't think that it is the province of government to force other people to do it.
On 2009-10-04 at 19:09:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg: The military is one constitutional province of government, let's try and cut back all of the places where the government has no constitutional business first, like redistribution of wealth.
On 2009-10-04 at 21:35:02, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: George W. Bush if favor of a non-intruding government? The same guy who unilaterally vetoed stem cell research and left USA behind other nations in that field? Even more, he has in the family oil business before becoming a politician, so he wasn't going to negatively affect the oil economy. Dare to tell me the war on Iraq wasn't an invasion for oil. So no, I'd first trust the exaggerated Al over the two-faced Bush. And that's saying a lot.
On 2009-10-04 at 21:37:42, BorgClown wrote...
Also, if "The military is one constitutional province of government", isn't it also civil protection when natural disaster occur? New Orleans? Nope, no oil there.
On 2009-10-04 at 23:01:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
You need to do a little more digging on stem cell research. You seem to have drank the Koolaid on that one. George Bush made stem cell research legal in the US, it was illegal before he came along and legalized it. There are even some liberal European countries which haven't done that yet. Bush made stem cell research legal in the US. Bill Clinton did not even do that. Bush just said that government money could not be used for it.
On 2009-10-04 at 23:03:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ:No one is forcing you to come to a place in which you do not believe exists, you have the freedom to stay where you are now. If the US government passes it's cap and trade bill, I will be forced at the point of a gun to pay for something in which I do not believe.
On 2009-10-05 at 09:11:33, BorgClown wrote...
It was in the news the day Bush vetoed stem cell research. IIRC, it was because human embryos were the source back then. Now it's become legal because scientists worked hard to find stem cells in other places, like your heart or your nose.
On 2009-10-05 at 09:12:29, BorgClown wrote...
In a way, it was good. Getting your own stem cells obliterates all incompatibility issues.
On 2009-10-05 at 10:09:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Being forced to pay for climate change shouldn't have any impact on your understanding of it, other than to get you to look at it more closely. It's a poor argument to say that you're less accepting of climate change just because you're anti-government. Be resentful of taxation, but don't use it as an argument against climate science.
On 2009-10-05 at 10:21:51, Lee J Haywood wrote...
"LeeJ, many of the things that you mention below are reversing because it is getting cooler once again." You're over-simplifying again. The cooling is not going to make any difference to the long-term warming trend, it's a short-term effect. Hardly anything will have an opportunity to 'reverse', and even if there were partial recovery it would be rapidly undone once warming re-asserts itself.
On 2009-10-05 at 10:25:41, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Being a hypocrite doesn't automatically make someone wrong. Al Gore is right about some things and wrong about others, no matter what you think about him personally.
On 2009-10-05 at 14:19:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
"The cooling is not going to make any difference to the long-term warming trend." You have no way of knowing that.
On 2009-10-05 at 14:20:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
Oh, I understand it all right. It is a farce. It is an excuse to tax the rich and give to the poor. It is the best thing to ever happen to a bunch of Democrats.
On 2009-10-05 at 14:25:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
Borg: You are wrong. The media spins it to make it appear that Bush made stem cell research illegal. He did not. He made it legal. He just said that federal funds could not be used or it. He said that federal funds could only be used for a strain of existing cells. That is the problem with the media, they tell you the story that they want you to hear.
On 2009-10-05 at 17:11:02, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I have no way of knowing what? The temperature will either level out or cool down slightly, then it will go up again. I know because climate science is monitoring current climate trends and is able to make predictions, with reasonable margins of error, based on decades of research. It's not rocket science.
On 2009-10-27 at 14:19:16, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-r_ws_333941.html