what year to get pregnant

[WVUPharm2007]

I'm getting obnoxiously good at this. I'm to the point now where I don't even have to argue. I have other people arguing for me. I can just sit back, read, and laugh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Priapism321]

I'm getting obnoxiously good at this. I'm to the point now where I don't even have to argue. I have other people arguing for me. I can just sit back, read, and laugh.

They are all doing your bitch work. You are the true arguer, and everyone knows it....

 

[powertoold]

You can't win an argument on the internet, especially with people who don't suscribe to reason or have had certain beliefs engrained for years and years. I admit I'm not reasonable all the time However, I always try to fix that, whereas others are okay with being unreasonable.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

They are all doing your bitch work. You are the true arguer, and everyone knows it....

That's right. They should have done a pgy2 after they got their ArgueDs. Then they could be the ones researching new argument methods in the New England Journal of Arguing. Along side ADs, of course.

 

[Old Timer]

I don't think you'll change your views no matter what I say, but since I have a lot of time on my hands, I'll just express my views.

Science does not prove anything. We use the word proof because the evidence presented is stringent enough such that we don't normally imagine that the conclusion can be false. For example, you say science has proved that the earth revolves around the sun. In casual conversation, I would say you are right. However, this conclusion is based on measurements and the human perspective (i.e. our eyesight, technology, logic, etc.). It's possible, albeit very unlikely, that everything we've measured and observed in terms of the earth revolving around the sun has been a result of flawed measurements or an optical illusion (e.g. a tear or warp in space and time). Before Einstein's time, when we saw a star in space, we would conclude that the physical star existed at that location. However, Einstein's theories have shown that the light from the star can actually bend, so now, we no longer believe our old conclusion, which seems to be OBVIOUS. The reason it is not PROOF is because if a new good experiment comes along that concludes the earth does not revolve around the sun, then the previous conclusion is no longer true. If something is proved, then it represents an infallible conclusion, which is NEVER the case for any scientific conclusion. People will always attack evolution because it's a "THEORY," but in terms of how stringent the theory of evolution is, it is pretty much as stringent as evidence based medicine. Sure, there are rare cases where the medication doesn't work, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss the overall effects of a medication...

You can express your views all you want. That does not obviate fact. You really have a problem with facts. Facts are facts and you can't explain them away. There are some things we do not have the full story on and some things we theorize about. But there are things we know. It is a proven fact that the chance of a flipped coin landing one side is 50/50. It is a fact that 2 plus 2 =4. It is a proven fact that

These are not theories. They are proven facts. I'm just using simple ideas. It is a proven fact people who have serum cholesterol numbers over a certain figure are more likely to have a heart attack..

I see what you mean, and I agree that some specific actions are seemingly contrary to one's belief system. You like to use Sanford as an example, but I'd say he doesn't actually believe in adultery in the same way you do. If he did, he wouldn't have done what he did. What I mean is that your belief in adultery is supported by other beliefs, and this combination of beliefs make up the category for adultery. For example, you may associate adultery as bad because you believe your wife treats you well or that it's never worth it, no matter what, to commit adultery. In Sanford's case, he may believe adultery is bad, but maybe he doesn't believe his wife treats him well and that it is SOMETIMES okay to commit adultery. Do you see the difference? In one case, your belief is already solidified; in the other, the belief is more amorphous. I know I'm getting into vague and ambiguous territory, but I think it makes some sense.

You are just a person who fails to understand human nature. Either adultery is a sin or it is not a sin. If you are a believing christian there is no amorphous gray area, it is a sin and Sanford certainly professes to believe that, in his value system it is wrong. Of course, you have no concept of sin and repentance so having a theological discussion with you would be like debating the theory of relativity.

I repeat there is NO correlation between belief and behavior. There are religious people who are good and those who are not and there are secular people who also fall into both camps. Look at it this way:

From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world but only these two. The race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere, they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people. In this sense no group is of pure race.

Victor Frankl

 

[Old Timer]

Hahaha. This thread is my fault.

This thread is bordering on pure insanity....

I'd rather have esoteric discussions that change nothing than listen to one more thread about why there are no jobs boo hoo.....

You can always unsubscribe.....

 

[powertoold]

You can express your views all you want. That does not obviate fact. You really have a problem with facts. Facts are facts and you can't explain them away. There are some things we do not have the full story on and some things we theorize about. But there are things we know. It is a proven fact that the chance of a flipped coin landing one side is 50/50. It is a fact that 2 plus 2 =4. It is a proven fact that

These are not theories. They are proven facts. I'm just using simple ideas. It is a proven fact people who have serum cholesterol numbers over a certain figure are more likely to have a heart attack..





You are just a person who fails to understand human nature. Either adultery is a sin or it is not a sin. If you are a believing christian there is no amorphous gray area, it is a sin and Sanford certainly professes to believe that, in his value system it is wrong. Of course, you have no concept of sin and repentance so having a theological discussion with you would be like debating the theory of relativity.

I repeat there is NO correlation between belief and behavior. There are religious people who are good and those who are not and there are secular people who also fall into both camps. Look at it this way:


Victor Frankl

This is all wrong, but it'll take too long to explain why. This post is also worthless and dumb. I also love the black and white world. Math proofs are pretty.

Here's a conversation between Old Timer (OT) and PT:
OT: Scientists have proven that statins will lower your cholesterol
PT: I've taken statins for a year with diet restrictions and my levels are still the same!
OT: Oh... well, it doesn't work for everyone, there are rare cases where it doesn't work
PT: But you said it was proven
OT: Well, in most cases, it's proven
PT: K, thx, bye

 

[Ava999]

That's why I stopped arguing a long time ago. We are getting no where with these arguments. The atheists are going to be the same, and the Christians aren't going to change either.

 

[powertoold]

It is a proven fact people who have serum cholesterol numbers over a certain figure are more likely to have a heart attack..

This is amazing! I presented an argument against your "proof" that the earth revolves around the sun, which is much more stringent than this "proof" you mention, yet you can still bring up this conclusion? If you haven't noticed, there have been many "proven" medical "facts" that have drastically changed over the past 20 years. When you say proof and fact, I guess you mean something that changes over time.

Also, you randomly posted a math proof, which has little to do with empirical proofs we were talking about. If you didn't know, once a math statement is "proved" (basically just means we haven't encountered any examples to the contrary and DOESN'T mean we never will!), it's called a theorem (Wiki). Woohoo! This means the theory of evolution, since it has the same few letters, must have been proved too.

 

[powertoold]

Ugh, Old Timer, I don't understand how you can say I have a lack of scientific understanding, when your understanding is worse I don't claim to know it all, but what I posted is pretty much conventional scientific thought. Then again, you might pose the argument that LANGUAGE IS ONLY A CONSENSUS, and my thought is different than the consensus, but it may be right since the consensus is sometimes wrong; therefore, you can't say anything about what I say!

Bleh, the world is twisted in this way. Sometimes I feel so powerless to change people's perspectives; then again, it's always nice to try. I feel like a lot of religious people get the wrong information, and they believe in unreasonable things as a result. I'm not saying atheists are somehow better. The whole point is to strive towards making reasonable decisions, and everyone's progress is different.

 

[cjhrph]

Our old friend, Pythagoras. A blast from the past. "Every man has been made by God in order to acquire knowledge and contemplate"

 

[powertoold]

"Every man has been made by God in order to acquire knowledge and contemplate"

So can some animals. Religion is the expression of our narcissism. Knowledge, love, happiness, and everything was made for us. In reality, we're just special because we have Intel Pentium 2304985230 processors rather than the Pentium 59320 processors that animals have. Who doesn't like thinking they're important to someone or God or society or the future?

 

[Old Timer]

This is amazing! I presented an argument against your "proof" that the earth revolves around the sun, which is much more stringent than this "proof" you mention, yet you can still bring up this conclusion? If you haven't noticed, there have been many "proven" medical "facts" that have drastically changed over the past 20 years. When you say proof and fact, I guess you mean something that changes over time.

Also, you randomly posted a math proof, which has little to do with empirical proofs we were talking about. If you didn't know, once a math statement is "proved" (basically just means we haven't encountered any examples to the contrary and DOESN'T mean we never will!), it's called a theorem (Wiki). Woohoo! This means the theory of evolution, since it has the same few letters, must have been proved too.

You are the one who does not know the difference between proof and theory. To you everything is a theory. That's life. Almost all proofs especially with regard to the universe are mathematical proofs. From the big bang to relativity it's all math. If you think there will ever be something to disprove the math equation there is no point in discussing this further. I pitty you as a practicing pharmacist. There is no proof any drugs work just theories on how they do? I doubt you will make it out of your rotations. And yes evolution has been proved. We might not understand all of the ramifications, but we know how cells divide and we know how they are constructed and it's not theory. By your way of thinking we should teach creation as well as evolution.....

What are you driving at?????

Did I mention statins? No I didn't. I said it is proven that people with cholesterol over a certain number have greater chance of having a heart attack. THIS IS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT. IT IS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT SMOKING INCREASES YOUR CHANCE OF GETTING LUNG CANCER.

There is no theory involved, no wiggle words. Don't twist what I just said or add or detract. Those are two statements that are proven to be true.

 

[cjhrph]

Religion is the expression of our narcissism.

Spoken like a true Marxist...

 

[powertoold]

By your way of thinking we should teach creation as well as evolution.....

THIS IS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT. IT IS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT SMOKING INCREASES YOUR CHANCE OF GETTING LUNG CANCER.

Creationism isn't a theory.

And science cannot prove anything. This is a fact. I'm a student; I know this stuff.

Smoking has been observed to increase people's chances of getting lung cancer. Smoking can even cause lung cancer. However, there is currently no proof smoking causes cancer. Your statement is wrong, trust me.

This isn't getting anywhere though, and I may be wrong with some of the stuff I say, but I'm very confident that science doesn't prove anything. Science, as it is practiced, cannot prove anything.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Spoken like a true Marxist...

Marx was a smart dude...a stone-cold realist in many ways...a hopeless pipedreamer in many others. But insofar as his views towards religion go...dude was spot-on...

 

[Old Timer]

Creationism isn't a theory.

And science cannot prove anything. This is a fact. I'm a student; I know this stuff.

Smoking has been observed to increase people's chances of getting lung cancer. Smoking can even cause lung cancer. However, there is currently no proof smoking causes cancer. Your statement is wrong, trust me.

This isn't getting anywhere though, and I may be wrong with some of the stuff I say, but I'm very confident that science doesn't prove anything. Science, as it is practiced, cannot prove anything.

You win science proves nothing and smoking does not cause cancer. Your words say it all.

Good luck with your career.

And one last. thing. You may no science, but you know absolutely nothing about life. Get out in the world while you still know everything. If religion=narcissism can you explain why as religion as waned in our socicery narcissism has increased?

 

[powertoold]

I don't know what source you deem to be "good." Honestly, I don't think you would change your mind even if my argument were supported by the Bible itself, but here is some cursory Googling on science:

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html#CERTAINTY

What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty

Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

.....

Science and religion are very different, both in what they try to do and in the approaches they use to accomplish their goals. Science seeks to explain the origin, nature, and processes of the physically detectable universe. Religion seeks (or religions seek) to explain the meaning of human existence, to define the nature of the human soul, to justify the existence of an afterlife for humans, and to maintain devotion to a diety or deities. Their goals are thus very different.

Thier methods are also very different. Science uses physical evidence to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from that evidence. Religions, on the other hand, commonly use divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and (in some cases) personal insight as the source of the answers to their questions. Science and religion thus are not, or should not be, competing approaches, because they seek to accomplish different things, and by different methods. In light of these fundamental differences in goal and method, science and religion are distinct but mutually compatible paradigms (a term we will explore further in the next section)

 

[cjhrph]

Earth to WVU.....Marx's predictions about capitalism turned out to be dead wrong. He was a racist and an vicious anti-Semite. He among others in history believed that they were somehow endowed with superior intelligence and wisdom, and had been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the masses.

 

[Old Timer]

Marx was a smart dude...a stone-cold realist in many ways...a hopeless pipedreamer in many others. But insofar as his views towards religion go...dude was spot-on...

Marx was a *****, and his dialectical theory collapsed like house of cards. In fact Marxism was abused by humans worse than religion ever was. Don't go shooting 22's now.... You may hate religion but don't go getting in bed with a nut job like Marx, it's beneath you...

 

[powertoold]

And one last. thing. You may no science, but you know absolutely nothing about life. Get out in the world while you still know everything. If religion=narcissism can you explain why as religion as waned in our socicery narcissism has increased?

Your observation is possible. Also, can you explain why as religion has waned, the society has become fatter?

Not sure you can tell, but the two have nothing to do with each other. I never said religion is narcissism; I just said it's an expression (i.e. derived from) of it, just like art can be an expression of our narcissism. Art does not = narcissism though.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Earth to WVU.....Marx's predictions about capitalism turned out to be dead wrong. He was a racist and an vicious anti-Semite. He among others in history believed that they were somehow endowed with superior intelligence and wisdom, and had been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the masses.

Nah, his "predictions" about capitalism were pretty much dead on. He pretty much nailed the downsides of capitalism pretty well. But as an ideologue, he was blinded by the "promise" of socialism that he couldn't see the inherent failures such a system would itself hold. Anyone that thinks capitalism is inherently "better" than socialism is an idiot. They are both purist ideologies that only work in magical vaccums. You want a pure capitalist country? Go to Somalia. That's a ****ing free market wonderland. You want a successful economy? Hook us up with a heavily mixed economy that keeps the consolidation of power outside of the hands of a few...be it the gov't...or a plutocracy...that's the only thing that has proven to work with the highest efficiency.

Too bad we have a world of idiots that think a single ideology or philosopher can solve the world's problems...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Marx was a *****, and his dialectical theory collapsed like house of cards. In fact Marxism was abused by humans worse than religion ever was. Don't go shooting 22's now.... You may hate religion but don't go getting in bed with a nut job like Marx, it's beneath you...

Yeah, the Soviets were *******s...because they were dumb enough to use a single ideology as a near-religion to run an entire continent and a half. The hell do you expect to happen? But Marx really was a genius. His LEVEL of thinking on many issues was un-freakin-believable. Other issues, he was like a whiny 20-something hippy that sat around singing koombiya...(or however the hell you spell it)

And I've actually read Das Kapital and the Commie Manifesto. They are great books...seriously...perhaps y'all should read them yourself.

 

[powertoold]

Hey Old Timer, I'm wondering what it'll take for you to change your understanding of science. What sort of sources and evidence would I need to present in order for you to believe me?

You can change my understanding by giving me a reputable source that says the process of science is to make proofs (certainties) about natural phenomena or something to that effect.

 

[cjhrph]

And science cannot prove anything.

I guess that means that science cannot disprove the existence of GOD. I suppose it comes down to the nature of your "facts" and "proofs".

What about the vampires? Maybe science can prove something after all...

http://io9.com/5241252/physicists-prove-that-vampires-could-not-exist

 

[cjhrph]

And I've actually read Das Kapital and the Commie Manifesto. They are great books...seriously...perhaps y'all should read them yourself.

Quick, run out and join a labor union.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Quick, run out and join a labor union.

I read Wealth of Nations, too. I'm willing to bet you've never read any of them. You just believe what some libertarian quackpot tells you to believe and smile. You are clearly great at being a predictable ideologue. To each their own.

 

[powertoold]

I guess that means that science cannot disprove the existence of GOD. I guess it comes down to the nature of your "facts" and "proofs".

What about the vampires? Maybe science can prove something after all...

http://io9.com/5241252/physicists-prove-that-vampires-could-not-exist

If science cannot prove or disprove (I really mean "make conclusions about") something, then there's no real good reason to believe in it, and I'm talking about natural phenomena, not like what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Please give me a counter example. My statement hasn't been contemplated for long.

Basically, EVERYTHING that we have good reason to believe has been theorized by science. If I press on my breaks, the friction will cause my car to stop. If I eat lots of cholesterol, I'll probably get atherosclerosis. If I jump, I'll fall back to the ground. If I get hit by a car, I'll break bones and get lacerations.

Then you get to religion. If I die a martyr, I'll get 72 virgins. If I'm a bad person, I will burn for eternity, even though God loves me. If Jesus were around, he'd conjure bread for everyone.

 

[cjhrph]

I read Wealth of Nations, too. I'm willing to bet you've never read any of them. You just believe what some libertarian quackpot tells you to believe and smile. You are clearly great at being a predictable ideologue. To each their own.


If Marxism and Socialism get you all fired up, then so be it. You seem to be enjoying the fruits of "semi-capitalism" at this time. (e.g. Your 100K salary at 25). This guy, (Marx) believed that private ownership and control over property should be eliminated. If you've read those books, you'll call this redistribution.

I call it theft.

You are right though, about true capitalism. It's all semi-capitalism.

You obviously have great contempt for conservatives or libertarians who are anti-communists. Why? Are the ideas of communism so attractive to you that your blind to it's shortcomings?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If Marxism and Socialism get you all fired up, then so be it. You seem to be enjoying the fruits of "semi-capitalism" at this time. (e.g. Your 100K salary at 25). This guy, (Marx) believed that private ownership and control over property should be eliminated. If you've read those books, you'll call this redistribution.

Aw, the wittle libertarian is putting words in my mouth. If you actually bothered to read anything I type, I claimed that Marx's great downfall from an intellectual basis was his religion-like following of his great ideology. I agree...socailism is bull****.

I call it theft.

Is it though? Marx actually had a really good rebuttal to this one. I mean, what is capitalism? It's the creation of wealth via the manipulation of capital. It's nothing about working harder or actually EARNING more money than the other guy. It's about exploiting those under you (i.e. captial) to expand your own wealth. It's just as much about "theft" as socialism.

"Profit is the theft of another man's labor." - Karl Marx (translated)

You are right though, about true capitalism. It's all semi-capitalism.

Of course, I am always right. Praipism321 came to realize this earlier today.

You obviously have great contempt for conservatives or libertarians who are anti-communists. Why?

Two reasons. One, they have all the economic power in this country. Two, because they are just as ****ing stupid as the socialists...but with power...

Are the ideas of communism so much that your blind to it's shortcomings?

This sentence makes no sense.

 

[cjhrph]

Is it though?

It is. But when it's done collectively, you'll call it something else.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Is it though?

It is. But when it's done collectively, you'll call it something else.

Ok, Mr. weak argument man.

 

[ffpickle]

Once again, Consensus is NOT science. Science is a matter of evidence, it is not based what a majority of scientists think. Peer reviewed and reliable scientific journals do NOT rely on consensus.

Anyway, here are your references. There are a bazillion more, if you actually cared to look for them.



1. Robinson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Rob inson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.
3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508.
4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.
5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.
F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Mete orology 92, 3-26.
6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.
7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Informa tion Analysis
Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of En ergy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/treglob.htm
8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.
9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
10. Na tional Climatic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007)
11. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003) Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.
12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Di oxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.
14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.
15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.
16. New ton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027234.
17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) International Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf
18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies,
Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.
19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.
20. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of climate research anomolies.
21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research
Letters 23, 1697-1700.
23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Science 293,
474-479.
24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical Res. 111,
2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, His tory, and the Mod ern World, Methuen, New York.
27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equilibrium Therm. 32, 1-27.
28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A.,
Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.
29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112,
2005JD006881.
30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.
31. Christy, J. R. (1995) Clima tic Change 31, 455-474.
32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.
34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.
35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.
36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001) Nature
411, 290-293.
37. Jiang, H., Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Geology 33, 73-76.
38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Ed wards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C.
A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.
40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
44. Hammel, H. B., and Lock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.
46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 165-168.
47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 168-170.
48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007) Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.
49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.
50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027142.
51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1998) private comm.
52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.
53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.
54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.
55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668;
56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.
57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.
58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ. 114, 227-284.
59. Segalstad, T. V. (1998) Global Warm ing the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European
Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.
60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545.
61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Nature 411, 287-290.
62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4167-4171.
63. Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.
65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.
66. Soon, W. (2007) Physi cal Geography, in press.
67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1998) Tellus, 50B, 1-24.
68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Nature 343, 709-714.
69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
70. Yama****a, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.
71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Compendium of Data on Global
Change, Carbon Dioxide In formation Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.
73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.
74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christmas Lectures, Royal In stitution,
London.
75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Science 315, 1533-1536.
76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Science 275, 1077-1078.
77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Nature 388, 460-462.
78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308,
1898-1901.
79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Science 313, 827-831.
80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.
81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379.
82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007).
83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997).
84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.
85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.
86. Idso, S. B. (1998) Climate Res. 10, 69-82.
87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Climate
Res. 18, 259-275.
88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Climate Sensitivity of Radiative Perturbations: Physi cal Mechanisms and
Their Validation, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66.
89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geophysical Res. 99, 14429-14441.
90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.
92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research
Letters 34, 2007GL029698.
93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication.
94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) Envi ronmental Science and
Technol ogy 41, 2131-2137.
95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006).
96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., and Corless, R. M. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
97. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.
98. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Clima tic Change 77, 211-219.
99. Idso, S. B. (1989) Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.
100. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Did you read those references? I randomly tried to look up a couple to no avail. Then, I was able to track down #79, read the abstract, and it doesn't contradict global warming. In fact, it refutes the thesis which purports that we don't need to worry about rising sea levels because the lost snow levels will be replaced by precipitation. It indicates that ice sheets are melting, sea levels rising, and yet snowfall isn't significantly increasing to replaced the lost ice levels. Next time you use a politicized 'science' website to paste a ****full of references, check them out first. Nice one

Do yourself a favor. Rather than criticize the Wiki pages, read just the first few paragraphs. Are you aware of the Nature study which shows that Encylopedia Brittanica Online articles are 95% the same as Wiki articles? For the purposes of our informal dialogue, Wiki is fine. I won't bombard you with a list of references (yet.....if you keep up this ignorance, I just might...the length of lists seems to impress you), but here is a very useful one....not to simply look at...but read. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

I remember reading that a year ago, and surprisingly remembered it well enough to respond to you earlier! I hate to say this, but You give me the awful impression of someone who never reads positions contradicting your own.

We never said Scientific Consensus is used as a method. It is an instrument for arguing a position within Science. Have you heard of a literature review? They look at the relevant research in a particular field and summarize the major and milestone publications. In other words, they summarize the consensus position if such a consensus exists. There is no significant 'debate' within the scientific community over the broad concept of our earth warming, partly due to anthropogenic influence. If there is any disagreement, it is in the details, like how much of it is due to carbon dioxide, what to do to ameliorate the effects, etc. We know the earth is warming. It's on the record. No one debates this. No one. The media makes it sound like it is a controversial issue, for which the jury is still out. It is not, the results are clear. Honestly, I really don't feel like debating this because your position is so irresponsible that it is an insult to our intellect.

 

[ffpickle]

Your citing Wikipedia? Seriously? Please tell me you don't use this a source of medical information in your practice...

I am not practicing. I am a student. I use Wiki for general information outside of my expertise, on issues such as global warming, Michael Jackson's life, etc. I check the relevant references when they are provided.

You should read it....But you won't..... You don't know anything about global warming. I hope you aren't as ignorant about another scientific issues.

It isn't a source for medical information while I am writing my thesis. For that, I use Google Scholar or just look up stuff using EndNote or Reference Manager.

 

[ffpickle]

Did someone up there really bust out the Pythagorean Theorem?

Hell yA!

 

[IrishHammer]

That's right. They should have done a pgy2 after they got their ArgueDs. Then they could be the ones researching new argument methods in the New England Journal of Arguing. Along side ADs, of course.

I heard the ArgueD market is saturated...

 

[cjhrph]

I am not practicing. I am a student. I use Wiki for general information outside of my expertise

You've cited it as fact several times in this thread alone. [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]You must be fairly confident that the information contained there is accurate. My opinion is that Wiki is a reliable source for amusement. only. It's an unreliable source of information. Does your university allow to cite wiki in your papers?

 

[Old Timer]

Your observation is possible. Also, can you explain why as religion has waned, the society has become fatter?

Not sure you can tell, but the two have nothing to do with each other. I never said religion is narcissism; I just said it's an expression (i.e. derived from) of it, just like art can be an expression of our narcissism. Art does not = narcissism though.

Our discussion is finished. I bow to your superior knowledge of life and all things in it. You are master of argument. Please, please let me know if you ever decide to come to PA so I can safely leave. You are with out a doubt the dumbest smart person I have ever encountered in my life. If you understood the moral teachings of western religion you would understand the correlation between more religion more guilt less religion more narcissism. The obesity is a non sequiter. It has also gotten warmer, all sports leagues have expanded, Al-Queda was formed, the Berlin Wall fell and none of them had anything to do with the decrease in religiosity in the USA. Please don't respond to this.....

 

[cjhrph]

In fact, it refutes the thesis which purports that we don't need to worry about rising sea levels because the lost snow levels will be replaced by precipitation.

It makes no such claim. That citation was referenced to demonstrate that temperature change has occurred since the "little ice age, and, as a result antarctic ice may actually be increasing due to increasing snow.

Wiki pages, read just the first few paragraphs.

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but, Wiki is not a reliable source of information. It is not allowed to be cited by any respectable university or peer reviewed journal that I know of, and for good reason. I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me. Your personal standards may be different. Which university are you a student?

Are you aware of the Nature study which shows that Encylopedia Brittanica Online articles are 95% the same as Wiki articles?

Does this mean that Wiki is only 5% incorrect?


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

Ah, Naomi. The surrogate mother of the global warming hysteria and Al Gore's oracle. I have noticed that the editorial boards of those journals (nature and science) have been widely criticized for not publishing dissenting viewpoints on the subject. In any event, there's more to this (GW/CC) than just science. It's been highly politicized and there is a tremendous amount of research monies and tax revenues to be gained by continually beating the drum of apocalypse.


You give me the awful impression of someone who never reads positions contradicting your own. There is no significant 'debate' within the scientific community over the broad concept of our earth warming.

Not so. I believe that we are in a warming period. The earth has been warmer for the last 3000 years. However, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past than they are today. I simply do not remain convinced that the data supports the notion that the increases in hydrocarbon use are the cause. I also don't believe that massive gov't carbon cap schemes are anything more than enormous source of tax revenue. GW is a component of the environmental movement and I don't believe it is really about the environment or science at all. It's about politics, wealth, power and public devotion.


The media makes it sound like it is a controversial issue, for which the jury is still out.

Are you kidding? I think it's time to for you to lay off the crack pipe.. Which media outlet do you listen to or watch? As far as I am concerned, the media as a whole makes it sound as if there is no longer any room for debate.


We could go on forever about GW (or to be PC, climate change). I get it. You are a true believer (e.g. fanatic) in GW/CC and anyone who suggests another point of view, or expresses doubt is to labeled "ignorant" and villified. It's almost as if GW/CC has a become a "religion".... it's scary. Weren't you the same individual that had a problem on independence day? I'm starting to think that you may have some type of cognitive disorder, although, I admit, I am not diagnostician.

I find it interesting, if not hypocritical, that when someone on these boards posts a discussion regarding "saturation" or "declining salaries", that they are quickly labeled as a "troll" or "alarmist" as taken to task for creating the perception that the sky is falling. However, those very same people on this board are very quick to sign on the to alarm, eat the bread, drink the wine, and, immerse themselves in the hysteria that the global warming crowd is perpetuating.

And just who is this "we" you keep referring to in your posts? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

 

[powertoold]

Our discussion is finished. I bow to your superior knowledge of life and all things in it. You are master of argument. Please, please let me know if you ever decide to come to PA so I can safely leave. You are with out a doubt the dumbest smart person I have ever encountered in my life. If you understood the moral teachings of western religion you would understand the correlation between more religion more guilt less religion more narcissism. The obesity is a non sequiter. It has also gotten warmer, all sports leagues have expanded, Al-Queda was formed, the Berlin Wall fell and none of them had anything to do with the decrease in religiosity in the USA. Please don't respond to this.....

Old Timer, you base your beliefs on wrong knowledge. Do you remember when you believed that patient names aren't PHI? Yes, you were wrong. Again, you are wrong again about science, the basis of evidence based medicine. We all like to be right, but when we're wrong, it's good to concede and change our viewpoints.

Like I said, I may be wrong about some of the stuff I posted, and although I'm very confident of my understanding of science, I'd appreciate a good argument against what I said. Then again, you'll say "oh but you already said you know this stuff, lala you're the knower of all, lalala"; you should notice that I was simply mocking your approach, which was basically say like you already know it's true (proven facts ).

The obesity is a non sequiter. It has also gotten warmer, all sports leagues have expanded, Al-Queda was formed, the Berlin Wall fell and none of them had anything to do with the decrease in religiosity in the USA.

I know my argument with the obesity and narcissism was bad. I used the same unreasonable assumptions you do. Honestly, I don't believe what I said, since it's so black and white. Okay, for some people, religion is a expression of narcissism, but it's obviously not always the case, and with the obesity argument, I was trying to point out that you make associations that are convenient for you. It's possible that religion and obesity have no association whatsoever, but it just so happens that obesity has increased while religion has declined. Someone similar to you would think, "oh, religion is about not being greedy, and getting fat = being greedy with food; religion has declined = more greed = more fat people! It makes so MUCH SENSE, it's such a REASONABLE thing to say!" In reality, we don't know, and I'm not sure we can scientific test such a hypothesis.

Basically, you have no reason to believe that the events you listed have anything to do with the decline or rise of religion, yet you still believe it. In the same way, I have no reason to believed that religion is an expression of our narcissism, so I'll admit and dismiss that belief. I have better ways of arguing against religion, so making a dumb and broad statement like that is detrimental to my argument.

Please don't respond to this.....

Why shouldn't I? You're playing the "LALALALA I can't listen to you" approach that many people who don't have good reasonable arguments follow. I hope you understand that our argument isn't just with each other; maybe others are having the same thoughts, so I hope others chime in. Although I don't like it, it's good for me to be wrong. This is the way I learn things. Yes, I am taunting people to present a good argument against mine!

 

[SHC1984]

There is NO God. The End. Shows over.

 

[homeslice]

I think you should get pregnant when you have the resources and feel you will fully be able to dedicate your time to your child.

Wait, what are we talking about again?

 

[Old Timer]

Yeah, the Soviets were *******s...because they were dumb enough to use a single ideology as a near-religion to run an entire continent and a half. The hell do you expect to happen? But Marx really was a genius. His LEVEL of thinking on many issues was un-freakin-believable. Other issues, he was like a whiny 20-something hippy that sat around singing koombiya...(or however the hell you spell it)

And I've actually read Das Kapital and the Commie Manifesto. They are great books...seriously...perhaps y'all should read them yourself.

Maybe sometime. In the mean time I'll satisfy myself with the knowledge that what he espoused has failed everywhere it was tried. Even without dictatorship, it does not work. The Kibbutz movement in Israel is pretty much moribund. Capitalism ain't perfect, but it whupped Marx's ass, but good. Ultimately it was the capitalist economy that won WWII and the cold war. Please don't ask me to defend every excess of the capitalistic system. Even now in the midst of a recession, 90% of the available work force is employed. To paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system in the world except for all the rest.

 

[MountainPharmD]

I am very confused...What year is the best year to get pregnant?

 

[SHC1984]

I am very confused...What year is the best year to get pregnant?

The third year after you have married a rich husband.

 

[TXPharm]

There is NO God. The End. Shows over.

This is not the place for this type of discussion. Your conversation has nothing to do with pharmacy. Someone please remove these posts or this thread.

 

[SHC1984]

This is not the place for this type of discussion. Your conversation has nothing to do with pharmacy. Someone please remove these posts or this thread.

Did I hit a nerve? Truth hurts.

 

[cjhrph]

"His LEVEL of thinking on many issues was un-freakin-believable"

Which issues?

 

[cjhrph]

Ok, Mr. weak argument man.

Sorry man. You lost me at "Marx was a genius". I was really liking you up to that point...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

"His LEVEL of thinking on many issues was un-freakin-believable"

Which issues?

Many. Ideas on religion, economics, and how they have influences society negatively to be specific. Now, I know this is hard for an ideologue like you to understand, I don't agree with the man on everything...but in many aspects, he was easily one of the most important philosophers mankind has ever produced.

I also agree with his theories about religion, vis-a-vis it being the "opiate of the masses."

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

I'm sure a religious person would disagree, but I think he was spot on. As I look at religion...it exists solely to appease those that aren't fulfilled. But it does serve a purpose towards those that need it. It is, literally, the opiate of the people. Ironically, the view one Thomas Paine had of religion was even more scathing. Yet he appears in your sig, now doesn't he?

If you want a list of things that can and will go wrong in capitalism, he pretty much spelled them out perfectly. Nobody can really say that he was wrong about any of that stuff. Because he was completely right. Things like the means of production versus the relation of production. Brilliant capitalists have been preying off of that concept for centuries. His problem with me was that he bought into his own bull**** like it was infallible. Just like the politicians of today. Great at showing how stupid the opposing view is...light on showing how stupid their view is.

So, no, I'm not a "Marxist"...but I appreciate his genius.