search results matching tag: swallow

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (181)     Sift Talk (8)     Blogs (30)     Comments (820)   

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Trump Impeached

newtboy says...

He doesn't have to control much, just be in a position to throw a monkey wrench in the works when it suits him best. I believe that's where he sits. Not so much a puppet master, but a mastermind at getting Americans to hate each other by proxy, just by helping install a monster in the seat of power, and more so by helping deify him to his followers.

If you don't believe Russia interfered in 2016 on Trump's side in hopes of gaining maybe 1/2 the advantages it's earned them, I think you are swallowing propaganda yourself.

geo321 said:

Russia is a horrible regime. Putin is an oligarch looking over lesser oligarchs. But @newtboy if you believe that cunt is controlling everything then you have eaten a massive meal of propaganda.

Honest Government Ad | We're Fucked

Honest Government Ad | We're Fucked

The Glenlivet Capsule Collection

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

newtboy says...

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

Meanwhile at a Democratic Socialists Convention...

bcglorf says...

I'm Canadian, so as much as American politics and media is pervasive up here, some of it still foreign to me.

That said, it feels like I'm observing a not undeserved observation that white-national and anti-immigrant ideologies are dominating mass shootings in the US. I guess where I get wary is with the sources most adamant about demanding that leadership on the 'right' acknowledge and address it as their own problem. Those same sources when discussing terrorism dominated by those claiming Islamic ideologies are adamant that Islam not be unfairly tarred by bad actors.

I'd have an easier time swallowing the line if either side were consistent in their approach. Either you blame BOTH Islam AND the 'right' for terrorist acts claiming common cause, or you reject BOTH Islam AND the 'right' being blamed for a few bad actors...

newtboy said:

I mostly agree, however when talking about political terrorism (edit :in the U.S.) there's little choice. Either ignore there are two different main camps and just call it domestic terrorism (something the right would never do with left wing extremist terrorism, and they shouldn't imo), or note it so you can better identify and target the problem.
We're all Americans, so there really is no "other guy"...but I take your point.

If you heard some of the ridiculous reasons I've heard for not voting Democrat, you would know your example is perfectly reasonable and logical by comparison. One spouted hatred for John Kerry because they preferred Hunts over Heinz ketchup so hated his wife. Seriously.

What's it like to work in the gaming industry

ant (Member Profile)

RUN DANIEL!

newtboy (Member Profile)

Eating banana in 1 second...

BSR says...

I know what you mean. Should not win a new world record for swallowing a banana without a full set of teeth. I call cheating.

AeroMechanical said:

Scruffy looking man with no teeth can swallow a banana whole in less than one second, setting new world record and making young heterosexual males feel inexplicably but deeply uncomfortable.

Eating banana in 1 second...



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon