Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
FTFY
Yes, I know that you're more interested in simple forecasts than, like, what's actually happening.
You glossed over the key point, again.
Not at all. I'm just not as arrogant and ignorant as you are to throw around crazytalk like this:
unprecedented and increasing rate.
-
Yes, I know that you're more interested in simple forecasts than, like, what's actually happening.
What's actually happening is that sections of the ice sheet that had been relatively stable have begun to melt, and are going to continue melting for the foreseeable future, and at an increasing rate, as we have seen with every other major ice sheet in the world. You're the one who's only concerned with a simple forecast here. "Whelp, snowfall means it's a net gain, so it's going to always be a net gain. Herp derp, global warming is fake."
Not at all. I'm just not as arrogant and ignorant as you are to throw around crazytalk like this:
unprecedented and increasing rate.
"Crazytalk"? You clearly haven't been fucking paying attention at all.
-
You're the one who's only concerned with a simple forecast here.
Go back and read your posts.
"Crazytalk"? You clearly haven't been fucking paying attention at all.
No, I'm all over it. You're the one who is denying the current science and imagining that we aren't gaining ice in Antarctica.
-
No, I'm all over it. You're the one who is denying the current science and imagining that we aren't gaining ice in Antarctica
No, I'm denying your oversimplifications of the current science and you're the one imagining that we aren't also losing ice and that the loss isn't probably going to outstrip the gains in a few short decades.
-
you're the one imagining that we aren't also losing ice
What are you talking about? I never imagined anything like that!
...and that the loss isn't probably going to outstrip the gains in a few short decades.
What are you talking about now? I never said that would or wouldn't happen! Stop listening to the aliens on your shoulder and read what's on the screen.
-
fossil fuels
One thing I find disconcerting about the move to electric vehicles is that we have highly refined combustion engines that operate on one of the most energy-dense substances that can be safely handled, along with a fuel distribution network so dense that one can find fueling stations on every other street corner, and a supporting economy of engineers, mechanics, and replacement parts so that downtime due to mechanical failures can be minimized. Talk of how electric motors approach 100% efficiency is all well and good, but the economy to support them is still in its infancy.
It's kind of like the new guy at the company who wants to completely rewrite the 10-year-old flagship application.
-
I never said that would or wouldn't happen! Stop listening to the aliens on your shoulder and read what's on the screen
I don't know about on your planet, but here on Earth, when you call something "crazytalk", there is an implicit denial of whatever the statement says.
-
@boomzilla said:
I never said that would or wouldn't happen! Stop listening to the aliens on your shoulder and read what's on the screen
I don't know about on your planet, but here on Earth, when you call something "crazytalk", there is an implicit denial of whatever the statement says.
Yes, obviously. I called you out about your "unprecedented" bullshit. And you are way too certain about the future. You do a lot of crazytalk on that front. And you listen to far too many shoulder aliens.
-
If an ice shelf that has been constant for pretty much as long as we know of, and then suddenly in a span of ten yers it's gone, that is the definition of "unprecedented", you moron.
-
When the reliable history is this small, there's not much use for "unprecedented" in the vocabulary. And people who keep using that word should be mocked and ridiculed for the fools that they are.
-
And people who keep using that word should be mocked and ridiculed for the fools that they are.
This, however, is precedented.
-
read what's on the screen.
Meh, that is the hardest part for him. He doesn't actually read it. He just interprets it however he wishes.
-
This thread is basically:
I like pancakes, therefore I had waffles1 for breakfast.
And then people are like:
prove it you moran
To which other people reply:
Here's evidence that you didn't eat waffles for breakfast: "I lied. It was Cheerios." -- Ben Lubar
To which other other people reply:
That's just hear-say. It doesn't prove anything.
And then we're stuck in a never-ending cycle of the type of evidence being used to "prove" something being the same as the type of evidence that apparently cannot be used to disprove the same thing.
-
And then we're stuck in a never-ending cycle of the type of evidence being used to "prove" something being the same as the type of evidence that apparently cannot be used to disprove the same thing.
What can I say? We got lots of practice in the transylguacamole thread.
-
And then we're stuck in a never-ending cycle of the type of evidence being used to "prove" something being the same as the type of evidence that apparently cannot be used to disprove the same thing.
I find your lack of understanding disturbing.
-
I don't believe you.
-
Read the comic in this post:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-funny-stuff-thread/2628/5038?u=boomzilla...and thought of this topic.
-
We haven't talked about the weather for a while ...
-
We haven't talked about the weather for a while ...
Not that long.
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/sleep-kinging-on-the-stifler/51824/720?u=boomzilla
-
We haven't talked about the weather for a while ...
It's not a foggy today as it has been for the past few days.
-
It's not a foggy today as it has been for the past few days.
Climate change! If this keeps going, London might become habitable.
-
It's not foggy because it's pouring rain for the moment.
-
Either way I still can't see Belgium!
-
Maybe you need glasses?
-
If this keeps going, London might become habitable.
I keep hoping that we end up drowning the entire city. Unlikely though. There's some actual hills hidden in there. (Actually, London has some nice parts. They're well away from where most of the people are though. These facts are probably related. )
Fixing London probably requires fixing England's ridiculously sclerotic land-use laws.
-
I put on my sun glasses and it didn't help at all.
-
-
A tranny doing a terrible attempt at whiteface. What has this got to do with ■■■■■■■.
Don't you people know how important it is to keep an eye on ■■■■■■■. The attack always comes from ■■■■■■■.
-
The attack always comes from ■■■■■■■.
Oh yeah that is clearly what history has learned us ...
-
Always comes from ■■■■■■■.
I think this also happen in the first world war.
-
Always comes
fromthrough ■■■■■■■.FTFY
I think this also happen in the first world war.
Yes.
-
See why we need to keep an eye on ■■■■■■■. It's why ■■■■■■■ shall remain forever banned from this forum.
-
It's why ■■■■■■■ shall remain forever banned from this forum.
Ok ... but the infiltration has begun!
-
MY GOD MAN WHAT IF THEY CHANGE ■■■■■■■ TO ■■■■■■■. IT'S ALREADY BEGUN!
-
It's inevitable ...
-
Actually,
LondonEarth has some nice parts. They're well away from where most of the people are though. These facts are probably related.FTFY
-
You're being too negative.
-
Fixing London probably requires fixing England's ridiculously sclerotic land-use laws.
Fuck that, just turn the M25 into a moat and leave them to it.
-
Either way I still can't see ■■■■■■■!
You say this like it's a bad thing. You're really not missing much.
-
It's foggy today ... currently not much to see
-
-
Who? The Belgians? I know! They are already infiltrating ... there is one sitting right in front of me ... he thinks I'm not on to him but I know all about his plans ... pretending to be a colleague and do some work here ... I'll show him!
-
-
Exactly! Before you know it the boss is going to expect that I would better do some work ...
-
@Fox said in Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler:
In any case, the Feds seem to have had nothing to do with this.
Exactly. It was Texas.
Also, it's really just part of a larger problem.
"There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states' rights."
-Texas State Board of Education MemberThis is pretty much a good indicator of how trustworthy the southern states are about accurate teaching.
I grew up in New England. I have heard for most of my life that the standard scholarly view is that the primary cause of the Civil War was not slavery. I disagreed with this - (I think slavery was the main cause), but to argue that Texas is hopelessly backwards because a board member has the mainstream (at least until recently) view is absurd.
-
@chozang said in Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler:
the mainstream (at least until recently) view
In "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen, it is explained in chapter 5 that the civil war was absolutely about slavery, but that school textbooks these days do not want to say that.
Slavery was the underlying reason that South Caroline, followed by ten other states, left the Union. In 1860, leaders of the state were perfectly clear about why they were seceding. On Christmas Eve, they signed a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Caroline from the Federal Union." Their first grievance was "that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations," specifically this clause, which they quote:" No person held to service or labour in one State, under laws thereof, escaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up..." This is of course the Fugitive Slave Clause, under whose authority Congress had passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which South Caroline of course approved. (Loewen, 139)
Despite this clear evidence, before 1970 many textbooks held that almost anything but slavery - differences over tariffs and international improvements, the conflict between agrarian South and industrial North, and especially "States' rights" - led to secession. This was a form of Southern apologetics. Never was there any excuse for such bad scholarship, and in the aftermath of the civil rights movement most textbook authors came to agree with Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural "that [slavery] was somehow the cause of the war." As The United States - A History of the Republic put it in 1981, "At the center of the conflict was slavery, the issue that would not go away." To my surprise, our newest history textbooks have backtracked on this issue. (Loewen, 140)
The "mainstream" view you refer to is not the view of historians or scholars, but of school textbook writers. School textbooks are not written by actual historians, but are instead designed by committee. Nearly all textbooks are designed to appeal to California and Texas, as they are the largest consumers of textbooks. If you want your textbook to be purchased, you have to make sure it agrees with the opinions of those states. Thus generations of kids learn this alternative view on history, and thus you learned about it indirectly as a result.
-
I read the title and thought it was more BBC Pidgin shit.
-
@chozang So you resurrected a 3-year-old thread to defend whitewashing slavery?
What a hero among men you are.
-
@blakeyrat said in Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler:
whitewashing slavery
Are you proposing that it was black people who caused slavery?