Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mainframe

  1. as you know, i could care less about the state religion of environmentalism. i consider any person pushing this agenda to be an enemy of the rights of individuals. and care not to further the discussion on this part of your post.




    Also you need to stop comparing everything to Nazi concentration camps. It makes you sound like a raving idiot and it trivializes the holocaust. It's just plain ignorant.


    That is all.

  2. as for getting my information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs, let's discuss that briefly. i will admit that i do tend to gravitate towards websites that support my personal perspective, but that doesn't mean i don't cross spectrums. realistically, this is the information age. you can find information supporting whatever paradigm it is you want to jump into, so to come off like THIS information is more valid then THIS information is a little ridiculous. we could sit here and post articles from all over the internet from official or unofficial sources supporting both sides of the climate gate issue, or even the entire global warming/climate change debate. there is endless amounts of information out there, that's why i would much rather prefer a discussion instead of a contest on who's information is more valid.


    I see what you're saying, but the problem with the internet is that it gives every dumb-ass a voice. It is very difficult to accurately gauge something like broad scientific consensus when some of the most outspoken, visible opinions (i.e. Glenn Beck) are also the most poorly informed and agenda-driven. If you go read some books about climate change and talk to researchers you are absolutely getting more valid information on the subject. Honestly I sort of feel like I'm arguing calculus with people who never passed algebra and think they know more than me...that's not totally directed at you.


    you're coming off like it was only a few specific scientists who tampered with data, like this is just an unimportant issue that happened upon a whim, but am i mistaken in saying that wasn't this coming from one of the main sources behind the whole global warming consensus. so in essence it would be like the headquarters of the entire global warming theory, sending e-mails back and forth to each other about manipulating and suppressing data that didn't coincide with their theory.


    Yes, you are mistaken. There is not a "headquarters" to the entire global warming theory. Scientific consensus refers to broad, multidisciplinary agreement about a result that is supported by large amounts of research data. Scientific research is done in such a way that it wouldn't really be possible to manufacture a false consensus. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of people who work with the raw information almost every day. However, what is reported in the media is of course often skewed and blown out of proportion. This is perhaps where most of your skepticism comes from.


    Also, I still haven't seen anything that really shows that these East Anglia scientists were even manipulating and suppressing data. As far as I can tell a big stink was made about some very vague information. To paraphrase a biologist I spoke to about this, it's really too bad this brought so much bad publicity, because the science behind global warming is still very good. Don't just be skeptical for the sake of skepticism.


    on the other hand, i do agree that severe climate change and environmental issues are occurring and we do have to take preventive measures to make significant changes. i personally believe though that there is an abundance of alternative methodologies we could pursue towards changing the way society consumes and operates, however i also understand that greed and power block those methods from being pursued by free humanity. that is my personal opinion.


    Well, yeah, but I think you're overeager to dissent and your desire to find fault with the government spills over into other subjects. Climate change is a very complex subject, to be sure. It's hard to say what the best path is.

  3. Strikeforce isn't bad, they just don't have much of a roster. I want to see them put Brett Rogers up against that Bobby Lashley guy.


    Next card I plan on buying is probably UFC 111. It's got GSP vs. Dan Hardy and Frank Mir vs. Shane Carwin. I'm intrigued to see how Mir comes out after gaining all that strength.


    112 is sounding really good too, Silva vs. Belfort and BJ Penn vs. Frank Edgar.

  4. second of all climate gate proved that scientists were willing to suppress data that didn't support their consensus on global warming, and were going far enough to even exaggerate data through manipulation.


    It did not prove that "scientists" are willing to falsify data, it suggested that a few specific scientists may have tampered with some data, but it is unclear what exactly was tampered with and what their goals were in doing so. Climate gate provided an open-ended scandal that was taken by many skeptics as total vindication of their own position. Massive assumptions were ascribed to rather meager information.


    it's interesting to me that when these things occur, instead of taking them into account you consciously reject it and claim it "means nothing" or has been "debunked" or isn't true.


    As I indicated, if you look at the climategate thread I already explained my position on this. I can confidently say that I have taken this information into account and find it unimportant. It's mostly just unfortunate that it muddles things for overzealous skeptics like yourself.


    that always seems to be the case regardless of how things turn out, people on your side of the debate don't ever seem to be willing to admit to certain data, but are more then willing to throw the data in support of your side of the argument in everyone's faces with arrogance. you have to take all things into consideration, and if climate gate "didn't mean shit" then copenhagen would have probably went a lot smoother then it did now wouldn't it.


    Well, if you're going to consider an educated opinion "arrogance" then we can end this discussion right now. I think I can say that I am the one being more objective here. Try getting your information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs. As of yet I have no reason to think you are capable of this, but by all means surprise me.

  5. the only thing being debunked is man-made global warming, obvious enough from the wikileaks climategate information. the fact that you call everyone tinfoil hat wearers says enough for me to understand your angle on everything.


    Why don't you read the other threads? Climategate didn't prove shit. I'm just exasperated with the level of willful ignorance on this subject.

  6. I'll check it out.


    He's not just one man. The information he gets and uses is not created by himself.


    I don't see where you are going with that. I have also posted several different articles that are similar in nature to his opinion. Which again is based off of information that he collects. He does not conduct experiments or does studies.


    At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.


    Jared Diamond is a geography professor at UCLA and an accomplished author. He is not an investigative journalist. The book Collapse contains historical examples of societies that have failed directly due to poor ecological management. It's very well researched and it doesn't really have any political agenda; it's an impressive synthesis of information from several related fields. It also shows very convincingly the level of impact human societies can have on our ecosystem.


    I also am fully aware that I am not an expert. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So constantly reminding me or bringing this up as some sort of defense, really isn't necessary. I have not received an education on most of these matters besides what you normally would learn through various different science courses you take through out your life.


    I'm merely pointing out that it's absurd and rather stupid to have a strong opinion on something of this nature without any personal expertise. It's fine to question the information you get from mass media, which tends toward fear-mongering and politicizing the subject, however this does not change the research that is being done across the world. Doing your own internet research is VERY misleading, for reasons that should be obvious to you.


    Do you have any such credentials? Because if not than you are sitting pretty much where I am and are just trying to base conclusions off of the information that you receive.


    Well I have a B.S. in Physics/Environmental Studies so I suppose I am more qualified than you to speak on this subject. I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert', but I grew up around scientists and regularly talk to people who are doing research related to climate change. Everyone draws some kind of conclusion based on "information that you receive" however I understand that some people (i.e. experts) receive greater volumes of better information. In the scientific community there are certainly dissenters (as there always are and should be) and some aspects of climate change are uncertain, but overall the science is considered very very good.


    I have also constantly reminded you guys of the fact that the "consensus" among scientist's in the 70's was that we were going to be heading into another Ice Age. The Earth was to be covered in Ice.


    Now we're going to turn the planet into a giant waste land due to over heating. The Glacier's are going to melt, the oceans will rise. Entire specie's are going to be wiped off the mat, disease will spread, famines will occur.


    I have yet to see anything suggesting this '70s Ice Age scare' is actually comparable to what's going on today with global warming. Doomsday scenarios aren't really what this is all about anyway. The point is that as global population burgeons humankind needs to become more in tune with our impact on the ecosystem. Things are changing and it is vital to come up with sustainable energy alternatives and manage our resources much better.

  7. I felt bad for Coleman, he looked real dejected after the fight. I don't know why he tried to stand up with Randy like that. It sounded like his corner gave him shitty advice too. And fuck Tito Ortiz.


    That's only the trailer, you can easily find the torrent online. Because he is way more educated than me on matters such as the environment.


    This from the guy trying to dispute scientific consensus...remember that the entire scientific community is more educated than you on these matters.


    I've posted this before, but try this "Collapse" instead:



  9. No way I'm gonna pay for UFC 109, I'll find a live stream online.


    That ppv WEC event in April looks really good, but there's still no way I'm payin $45 or any fraction thereof to watch it. Probably gonna watch that online too.

  10. ^yeah, I tried tellin em that. Polarized black/white, yes/no, right/wrong viewpoints are very stubborn and self-righteous.


    I think the most interesting thing going on in this thread involves psychological disposition rather than actual "issues" and political alignments, but I don't feel totally qualified to speak on that.


  11. David Foster Wallace is amazing but I'm a little intimidated by Infinite Jest. His writing can get a little dense/verbose and I'm not anxious to crack open 1000+ pages of that. This from someone who re-reads Dostoyevsky.


    I just read A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, it was pretty good. For those who want to get into DFW I would suggest checking out the stories "Good Old Neon" (from Oblivion) and "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men" (all of em, but especially the last 'interview'). Dude is easily one of the very best recent authors of fiction.

    • Like 1

  12. Don't devote an entire day to arms, especially the day before you do back, since many back exercises use a lot of biceps. I find that it's better to do triceps the same day as chest, and biceps the same day as back. Do triceps/biceps AFTER your chest/back work.


    If you haven't been lifting for very long, sets of 10 are good for building muscle memory and honing your form. In general though, especially for higher-weight compound exercises such as bench, deadlifts, squats, and rows, I would recommend doing pyramid sets. Work up to a weight you can only hit for say 2-6 reps, and do 2 or 3 sets at that weight, then work back down and really burn your muscles out. It depends on the exercise, I personally prefer to squat weight I can handle for at least 6-8 reps, but on bench, with a good spotter, I might push it to 2 reps.


    Build your workouts around compound exercises, and always start with your bench, squat, deadlifts, rows or whatever and do accessory work afterward. Also, if you don't already, try taking some whey protein right after you work out.

  13. What's so stupid about calling Obama a socialist or a communist is the assumption of ideological alignment on his part. I find that these criticisms tend to come from people who hold fast to their own unwavering -isms or left/right-wing identities and assume everybody else is the same way. Obama, like most people, is a moderate, plain and simple. As a politician he must find a balance between what he and his cabinet views as pragmatic and responsible, and public opinion. Some of his policies might have socialist aspects but it is unrealistic and polarizing to call him a socialist.

  • Create New...