I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
Latest Popular Most Bookmarked Most Emailed Top Rated My Favorites Random Chat
All Games Funny Entertainment Quizzes Weird Tech Lifestyle, Arts & Lit. News & Politics Science Sports Misc
T-Shirts   Submit Content  

13 Worst `Earth Day` Predictions: 1970

43 Years ago they held the first Earth Day, here`s a few predictions that didn`t quite turn out.

submitted by: 5Cats
< Back Next >
13 Worst `Earth Day` Predictions: 1970. 43 Years ago they held the first Earth Day, here`s a few predictions that didn`t quite turn out.
+ Add to Favs
View/Add
Hits: 10131 | Favorites: 1 | Emailed: 2 | Rating: 1.9 | Category: Funny | Date: 04/22/2013
 
 popular today
Banned From Walmart [Pic] Good place to be banned from.
24 Awesome 3D Tattoos [Pix] Truly beautiful and somewhat creepy works of body ink art.
How To Fix Any Computer [Pic] No matter what. Reboot.
That Witch [Pic] Which witch? Oh, THAT witch.
42 Ridiculous Flyers People Actually Posted [Pix] Lots of flyers and posters are hung up on telephone poles and at supermarkets, but none as amazing as any of these.
More Comments >

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2077 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:28:36 PM
"Perhaps you should stick to processing insurance claims. Like they say, if the heat's too hot, get out of the kitchen."


I`m not the one who has to resort to personal attacks to win a debate, Squirrel Extraordinaire :)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 4:47:11 PM
(Cont'd)

Perhaps the most remarkable part of this whole exchange, though, is how little self-awareness you seem to have. On your way toward the exit, just before quoting Julius Caesar (in Latin!), you give this heartfelt speech describing your scientific purity: "But this has done much to solidify my belief that facts and data are the best rebuttal, not childish name calling, emotional characterizing, or personal attacks." Love it. You come on here parroting the words of a mining industry consultant whom you present as a scientist--and when rebuffed, you play the noble academic.

Bravo, my friend. Bravo!

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:36 PM
(Cont'd)

But it doesn`t surprise me that you`re struggling with basic science concepts since you`re also having a hard time distinguishing what a scientist is.

"The theories I `spammed`" as you put it, come from certified scientists like McIntyre," you write. And: "So if I post work from scientists like McIntyre...."

Here`s a clue for you: Stephen McIntyre is NOT a scientist. He`s a mining industry consultant.

Clearly, the things this mining industry consultant has to say, however, have enormous appeal to you since you`ve been parroting his sentences from his website, often without attribution, to an extent that verges on plagiarism. Adopting McIntyre`s persona, you get yourself remarkably worked up about Matlab errors--software I seriously doubt you`ve ever used, much less understand.

(Cont`d next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:18 PM
@Richanddead:

Regarding your latest:

No, friend, *doing science* and discussing or evaluating it are manifestly NOT the same thing (unless, of course, we're talking about peer review, which we aren`t). It`s disappointing that you still don`t get this, despite my best attempts. Seriously now: You think that you and I have been *doing science* in this thread? You really believe that people who are *discussing* the merits of scientific claims commit a logical fallacy if they observe that one study was, say, financed by ExxonMobil and published on a partisan blog (like your favorite website "C3 Headlines") while another was published in the peer-reviewed pages of a scientific journal? Here`s a tip: You know you`ve entered the realm of the sophomoric when your claims fall apart under the light of common sense.

(Cont`d next post)

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2077 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:29:14 PM
(con't)
it is possible that Mann and McIntyre are reacting to the same data as Matlab is used to compute RegEM data, and double use of a FOR loop would inflate data. As well both make reference to missing data in Rutherford`s model. But out of the two I felt that Mann would be more accepted by you guys then McIntyre although both are scientists and mathematicians.

Here is the Mann response (you`ll see how similar it is with the mistaken link):

link

and the paper he is reviewing:
link

But kudos to you kain1, I did error there and you found it right away, but I hope this clears things up and gives more of an explanation.

More Comments >
 


Bored | Suggest a Link | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.