I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

13 Worst 'Earth Day' Predictions: 1970

Hits: 10127 | Rating: (1.9) | Category: Funny | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:07:46 PM


Transjordan was a British protectorate until 1928 until the first Transjordanian treaty was concluded in 1928. Despite that the British still maintained a large military presence, controlled the foreign affairs, and even had partial control of the finances of the kingdom. The eastern part of Transjordan was designed so as to aid the British in building the Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline from their mandate of Iraq through Transjordan to seaports in the Mandatory Palestine.



And this isn't even half of it, I still haven't even mentioned anything about Lawrence of Arabia, the buffer zones of the Anglo-Egyptian War of 1882, the l9l9 Treaty of Friendship, the Long-Berenger and San Remo Oil Agreements, the British white papers and a host of other events that surrounded this issue. But as I said before I'm not going to

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:31:55 PM



The Transjordan memorandum wasn't passed until September 16, 1922. It was specifically passed to exclude the area called "Transjordan" from the provisions regarding Jewish settlement under article 25 of the British Mandate for Palestine. This was done to ease unrest caused by to Arab resentment. (which Britain had also earlier fomented)


richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:30:58 PM
(cont)

Talks of creating a Jewish homeland and discussing its possible boundaries goes back all the way to November 9, 1914 during a British cabinet meeting. There they discussed "the ultimate destiny of Palestine" and discussed the idea with Herbert Samuel. The Palestine mandate of April 24, 1920 determined at the San Remo Convention, encompassed all of modern Palestine, Israel, and Jordan



richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:30:14 PM
(cont)
Notice I didn't date it like I did other things. I was trying to simplify the history to fit into the character count.

The fact is in 1916 under the Sykes–Picot Agreement Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:29:21 PM
@xavroche: Simply because you added a date to when transjordan was created, and added a 1956 map of 1946 surveys does not mean I'm incorrect. Excuse me for not writing you a 10 page report on Lawrence of Arabia, the importance of the suez canal, the The Palestine Mandate, the spheres of influence, the League of Nations' Permanent Mandates Commission, the British White Papers, the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the Council of Four, the Hadda agreement, the Long-Berenger Agreement, the Treaty of Sevres, Franco-British Boundary Agreement, the Cairo conference, The Iraq mandate, the new Anglo-Iraqi Treaty, and multiple other treaties, wars, meetings, people and boundaries that affected the area.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:28:37 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 4:47:12 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 12:38:37 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 12:38:19 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
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:29:15 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.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:06:27 PM
(con't)

note 8. C)
"Because the infilling ... Strongly auto correlated series inflate RE and its level of significance, especially a trend over the entire period."

He is talking about Rutherford 2005's uncertain verification measure in this and the use of it in their study and how the mbh98 graph is not responsible for this.

he goes on "Rutherford et al., 2005 go one step into the right direction by swapping calibration and validation sets (but then it is unclear how the special calibration period 1856-1928 is motivated). To rigorously implement the above condition the selection process must be fully randomized." Reacting to the papers configuration paragraph and how it used data and cited Rutherford "who argue that the GCV regularization estimate is too crude in the presence of too many unknowns."

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:02:17 PM
(con't)

The link I sent originally was to highlight some of the flaws of the RegEM data that Mann found. It is a judgement of reprisal of a paper called "On the verification of climate reconstructions" to be added to a science journal called "Climate of the Past" in it they pose multiple statistical hypothesis's to show how RE scores are inflated. I don't really care about them. It's the data that they used from Rutherford, that is criticized, that matters to me.

I messed up and sent you the Interactive discussion of Ref #2, (because they look nearly identical and are under the same name) instead of the interactive discussion for who is most likely Mann but never identifies himself as these must be anonymous, but takes credit for mbh98 and Mann et al (2005).

He notes two problems that he had with Rutherford, I wanted to use this because it would not be seen as bias from my side.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 11:24:59 AM
@Kain1: ah, kain1 I'll reply one last time for you. Here is another link that explains it more clearly. Steve McIntyre notices the problem in the Matlab data set. Scroll down to the comments Mark notes that Matlab formed a composite "B(4:13,8:17) = A will replace the 10×10 subset of B with the data in A." Philip B. notes that the error represents itself in the low file along with other errors such as with the FOR loop, "along with a double use of a for loop index i." Meaning that the "from and to" increased inappropriately at the wrong rate.

Here

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25667 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 11:16:40 AM
@Kain1: I appreciate what you're saying, I'm not trying to "argue"...
Just remember that it's MUCH easier to say something than it is to "disprove" it. It takes a lot of words to counter... a lot of words!

@Squrlz4: So @richanddead's "sources are biased"? Well news flash! So are yours! He even uses some of the SAME sources as you do, but you still don't believe him?
But HE has a "closed mind"...

Sorry Bro, the AGW Parade is over! They'll soon move on to the "next scary thing" to try to frighten people into giving them money. Once they've milked THIS Cash Cow dry of course...

"Hide The Decline" = falsify data. It's right there in their own correspondence...

"If the data don't fit? OMIT!"

Kain1
Male, 18-29, Europe
 1463 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 8:57:20 AM
(cont)
This isn't my job, i can't afford to spend too much time researching things for an internet debate. To make your debate opponent give up through sheer attrition may technically be a victory in "debate club" or whatever, but if you want to have a somewhat serious discussion, you need to prove that you're right, not that you have enough stamina and free time to research these things beyond what your opponent can. What's the point of winning a debate, if you can't prove that you're right?


My longwinded way of saying, please be more concise and explain your points more thoroughly.

Kain1
Male, 18-29, Europe
 1463 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 8:47:23 AM
Wow, Squrlz. You really went all in with this one, didn't you ? :P

@richanddead: I'm not enough of a climate scientist to be familiar with any of those names, nor am i able to dig into the claims that you make, mostly because of time constraint.
However, i did read this link you posted regarding someone named Rutherford and his flawed matlab modelling. I have no idea if what you claim is true, but the link doesn't mention it as far as i can tell. He's praised to high heaven for his great methods (i skimmed it fairly thoroughly, don't have time for a readthrough.). My point is, you should probably read, and have at least a rough understanding of the links you post. You generally seem to throw a lot of graphs and names out there, without a thorough explanation of why it's relevant, or what the graphs show specifically. (cont)

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 7:58:30 AM
At last, I've had enough of this childish squabble, I'll give you the last words. I'm sure I'm the fool of fools in your eyes. 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. It is my hope, you'll adopt this line of thought one day, whatever your opinions on AGW may be.

As Caesar said "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 7:56:24 AM
6.
I've taken Biology 1&2, Induction to stats, Multivariable Stats, PreCalculus, and Calculus with Analytical Geometry 1&2. But I guess that still disqualifies me because I didn't take organic chemistry, physics, or earth science, eh? But I bet you did, sorry my school had course restrictions and I wanted to graduate on time.
But I fail to see how that matters since neither of us were crunching any numbers, we were both parroting studies who have been done by other real scientists. Well I was, you appeared happy with links to the impartial source skepticalscience.com and a graph, then began ranting about how smart you were and how dumb us plebs are.

In-fact, I took your suggestion, and maybe you'll take mine. Read what you wrote, in a mirror.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 7:31:28 AM
5.
Ah so anyone who disagrees with you is provoking you, as I said before, very childish. The theories I "spammed" as you put it, come from the citified scientists McIntyre, McKitrick, Singer,and Schneider. I did this because I wanted to post the graphs that their data concluded, while keeping it under 1000 words. You seem to understand that don't you? Since you had to do the same for your ranting of personal attacks. But between "spamming" compiled data and "ranting" personal attacks, I'll happily be accused of spamming data as means of rebuttal.

6.
Ah yes more personal attacks now backed by your physic senses. Better get them checked sir, because I attended Lycoming College and currently appling to the University of Maryland.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 7:30:58 AM
3. So if I post work from scientists like McIntyre that's considered spamming and provoking in your book because it would just take too long to disprove. Yet ranting multiple posts of personal attacks is not spamming nor time consuming. I see, ok.

4.
I 'm sorry but your restaurant analogy doesn't hold. A review of taste is an subjective opinion and therefore logic holds no place. A review of a scientific theory or hypothesis, is subject to logic. One can't just say something is a scientific theory because that is your belief, there must be a form of reasoning behind it. I refer you again to the Scientific method which I linked in one.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 7:30:45 AM
2. ah yes, back to the NOAA data sets, I used the graph because it plotted the points from the C3 data set (the site that first found and began recording them). I said on Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:09:26 AM- "also from a biased source but the data is genuine and has been verified by NOAA." If you have a problem with this data, by all means point it out, since not even NOAA disputes it.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1953 Posts
Friday, April 26, 2013 7:30:16 AM
@5Cats: Thank you but all I did was show the data.
@Squrlz4Sale:

1. & 4.
Lol, maybe you should reread the scientific theory again. "*Doing science* and *evaluating science*" are the same thing, since external review is meant to only give unbiased criticism based solely on if experiments themselves were sound. What you just said in 1. is considered an "appeal to novelty" and is considered a bias of scientific inquiry.
Here is a link, spend some time reading what External review and biases are, you might learn something. link

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25667 Posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:45:19 PM
@ak4775: THANK YOU!

Someone who appreciated the spirit of the original post!


@richanddead: You're quite able to "defend yourself" and don't need my help! Just know that I agree with you that AGW is crooked...

Is the whole Earth heating up? = possibly
Are Humans 100% responsible for this? = Um, no! 0.01% perhaps, but FAR from 100%...

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:41:57 PM
6. "you're also quite the narcissist"
This from someone who clearly has never taken any college- or graduate-level courses in organic chemistry, physics, calculus, statistics, or earth sciences, yet thinks he is qualified to dismiss the work of career scientists with just casual effort.

* * *

Well, that was entertaining. Anything else I can help you with?

Actually, I do have a suggestion. If you haven't already, scroll back and read my "Seven Distinguishing Traits of AGW 'Skeptics.'" I have no doubt that portions of it will sting. Yet if you can get through it, and mentally process it, there's real hope you could experience some personal growth. You are still in your 20s, so it's certainly possible. I mean that in all seriousness and with no ill-will.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:38:00 PM
(Cont'd)

5. "just making flat-out rude statements unprovoked"
What you fail to realize is that spamming the internet with garbage that attacks the works of scientists, as you have been doing, IS provoking. You like to pretend that you are simply an unbiased soul in pursuit of knowledge--while at the same time spamming this thread with a veritable smorgasbord of AGW "skeptic" misinformation. I suppose you are accustomed to not being called out on it. Too bad. As I've said already, if the heat's too hot, get out of the kitchen.

(Cont'd next post)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | 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.