@newtboy said:
“i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me”

Sigh, no. All but the most extreme end of the most pessimistic projections are for under 3ft by 2100. That is the science.

Each of your earlier claims can be demonstrated to be equally contrary to actual scientific expectation. Regrettably, your content to refute the IPCC with a link to a Forbes article...

Its a waste of my time to point out the science if you aren’t willing to. I’m out.

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

Sorry to hear that. As I have mentioned before (in a couple of different posts), I also grew up in a household that was deeply troubled and violent. My grandfather was a wonderful man when sober, unfortunately he was more often than not inebriated.

I experienced multiple styles of punishment, depending on the situation. If my grandfather was drunk, he was like as not to hit me. I still have a physical reminder of that method, in that he broke my nose once. I too learned to be elsewhere when he was drunk and to fear that version of my grandfather.

In times when he was sober, or when my grandmother was able (she suffered from MS), I received spankings. I learned that if I did not do certain things, I would not get spankings. So I stopped doing those things.

Same in school, I used to be a little shithead, very sarcastic and mean. I quickly learned that if I did things against other kids, I would get a paddling. The paddling didn't actually hurt that much, but the knowledge that other kids knew I was getting swats was very effective in making me stop acting out.

Later, as I became close to 18, both the school and my grandparents moved to a more hands off style. The school because, even in Texas, people were trying to get schools to stop using corporal punishment. My grandparents because they were older, sicker, and I was larger. My grandfather basically told me that I was close enough to being a man that I was going to make my own mistakes and he wasn't going to bail me out from them. I still got punished after the fact, but it wasn't physical.

Maybe I am an outlier, but that period was probably when I was the most wild. I got in trouble with the law, made terrible decisions, and probably would have done some serious time but for the guiding principles of my eventual wife when we started dating. I feel that if my grandparents and the school had been more strict during that time, I might have not had as many close calls as I did.

In any case, I would say that both of our experiences with earlier punishment would be taking it to the abuse level. I feel that corporal punishment, justly applied, is still better than not doing it. Fortunately we all can have our own opinion on the topic, so I can understand your viewpoint as well.

As far as the screwdriver, I wouldn't use it because it is completely ineffective. However, if I did not have a lug wrench and had a tool that could apply the proper force (say a crescent wrench or lockjaw pliers) I would use that tool.

Most wild animals, you want to stay downwind...

Wild skunks that I've seen have a pretty similar waddle-gait. I think a lot of the apparent size comes from extremely well cared-for fur (beautiful!); although it is almost certainly at least a little bit bigger and heavier than most wild skunks also.

I've heard of domesticating skunks before, but not seen it in person. I think owners usually (but not always) have a vet remove the scent glands ... wonder if that is the case here?

I dont understand the interviewer or people being wildly upset by this, do they really think the zookeepers, who feed and care for this giraffe are simply sadistic morons who kills a giraffe for fun or just because they can? Obviously there was a reason for this.

I am , however, in principal against zoos. they may be educational on some level, but I have a distaste for the concept of keeping wild animals imprisoned like this. But I do think that most zoos and zookeepers do their best under the circumstances to keep the animals happy as they can be. Most wild animals in the wild of course, live in perpetual fear and/or hunger, and so forth, but I am much more in favour of us spending money on preserving wilderness, and stop the perpetual destruction of their natural habitat, instead of keeping specimens in special "cages"/zoos.

>> ^rottenseed:
Have you ever done salvia? As a, once avid, consumer of drugs I'd have to say that Salvia is one of the strongest highs I have ever experienced. Like it rips your consciousness away from your ego with ease. You don't get any adjustment time...you're just separated from what you thought you knew about the universe. She doesn't do anything wrong. She just got fucked up. That's what happens to everybody that takes it (assuming its 10X or stronger). It's one of those drugs you don't want to do often and every time one of my friends or myself have done that drug, it has put us in a place beyond our control, no matter our experience level. It is the great equalizer.>> ^westy:
Morons
, looks like she probably has not done it much before.
its people like this that get drugs band , the same people that go out and get uterly waisted on drink, the only difrence is that the government or big companies will never make a huge amount of money out of salvea so it will get band off the bat.
she will end up blaming the drug rather than the fact she didn't bother researching what it dose ,, how much to take and what to expect.



I cannot agree more with what the seedy one said.

It gave me my most wild, vivid psychedelic experience I've ever had (thankfully, it was the most short-lived in realtime, although my conception of time was dramatically altered - those 5 minutes felt like an eternity). It's also given me the weakest (just a lightheaded feeling). It can be inconsistent, even 10x potency. Diviner's Sage can show you some pretty wild things... but only if it wants to.

I'm not going to watch or upvote, because honestly, video cameras should be consciously left out of the psychedelic experience. How they thought this would be a good idea is beyond me. I hope that this haunts them for the rest of their lives in job interviews.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
part of the atheist's argument is that belief itself is not sufficient grounds for believing something.

the atheist viewpoint is simply:
"None of these seems like good enough reasons to believe anything."

we just need better reasons. We tend to accept scientific conclusions, and sometimes they easily outdo religious fairytales in being the most wild and wacky claims

What does the atheist do when confronted with contradictory evidence? What does the atheist do when confronted with anecdotal evidence that explicitly invalidates known conclusions.

I assume you are aware of your own belief system, i.e., there are certain assumptions in your knowledge tree. What does an atheist do when the root of that tree is ripped from its foundation?

The religious argues that God exists because I believe he exists. The atheist argues that he isn't satisfied because he doesn't believe that belief as sufficient.

No. part of the atheist's argument is that belief itself is not sufficient grounds for believing something. That is an argument against circular reasoning. the atheist equalent would be to say "I doubt so strongly that there is a god, that simply based on my doubt alone, God cant exist" I have never heard an atheist use that kind of reasoning, and certainly not Sam Harris.

But the whole theist "argument" usually boils down to arguments like that. Really basic fallacies like :
"I believe it because I really, really believe it"
"I believe it because millions believe it"
"I believe it because its in the book, and the book says its true"
"I believe it because its personally consoling to me"

Where as the atheist viewpoint is simply:
"None of these seems like good enough reasons to believe anything."

Which is by far the LEAST arrogant position. Like the religious, we are prepared to believe just about anything, we just need better reasons. We tend to accept scientific conclusions, and sometimes they easily outdo religious fairytales in being the most wild and wacky claims (such as quantum physics) but we accept it based on these claims ability to withstand constant scientific scrutiny, like peer-reviewing, competition, testing, new observations, predictions etc.

Assuming they were some type of designed super-human is pure quackery plain and simple. These people making comments were either edited beyond ethical means or are just making the most wildly absurd speculations they can for attention. psh. It was probably a fashion like foot-binding or something, or some superstition.