backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Oct 25 at 11:50 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Droughts are also accused of being the work of evil old global warming

After a decade of flat temperatures and missed predictions by global warming's shrillest speculators, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is still ringing the alarm bell for all who care to listen.  While she lacks the evidence to prove it, in a recent interview she expressed that she was "sure" warming was to blame for a laundry list of recent natural disasters, including, but not limited to wildfires and droughts.

I. UN Chief Believes Warming is to Sure Warming Causes Wildfires

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of Time Warner Inc.'s (TWXCNN news agency, Ms. Figueres also expressed indignation at the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Abbot has referred to more extreme global warming predictions as "total crap" and pushed to repeal Australia's carbon tax, having disbanded the nation's climate change board in September.

Australia has recently suffered from raging wildfires, and Ms. Figueres was quick to seize on this point, stating:

We are really already paying the price of carbon.  We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with droughts.


She admitted, though:

The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet.  But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that there these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.

Australia wildfire
A wildfire rages in Australia. [Image Source: EPA]

It's worth noting that Mr. Figueres holds no degree in climate science (nor do most UN officials tasked with setting warming policy), having achieved a Master's Degree in social anthropology.  While this career politician may be unversed in climatology from a technical standpoint, she's not afraid of making bold and emotional claims.

II. Climate Chief was "Born Impatient"

In another recent interview -- this time with BBC News -- Ms. Figueres appeared to admit that she lacks the patience to wait for a thorough scientific study on the impact and extent of warming before taking action.  She is quoted as saying:

I am always frustrated by the pace of the negotiations, I was born impatient.  We are moving way, way too slowly, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what gives me courage and hope.
...
I'm committed to climate change because of future generations, it is not about us, right? We're out of here.  I just feel that it is so completely unfair and immoral what we are doing to future generations, we are condemning them before they are even born.  
We have a choice about it, that's the point, we have a choice.  If it were inevitable then so be it, but we have a choice to change the future we are going to give our children.

Christiana Figueres
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC executive secretary [Image Source: Getty Images]

Ms. Figueres -- who assumed her post at the UN in 2010 is currently working on drafting a global climate treaty, as per the decision reached at a 2011 summit in Durban, South Africa.  The treaty could look to implement carbon taxes, or other wealth redistribution measures supposedly aimed at "fighting warming", but it will have a tough road ahead, if temperatures remain flat over the next decade.

Sources: CNN, BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Trash Article
By frelled on 10/23/2013 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
What is funny is that Climate Change Scientists bring actual science to the table. What do skeptics do, they throw a fit and use words like alarmism as their reason for why climate change doesn't exist. The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings. Climate change is real, it has already been proven by science. Even skeptic scientists hired by right wing politicians have changed their mind. Skeptics are merely an uneducated vocal minority, and a tiny one at that.


RE: Trash Article
By WLee40 on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Trash Article
By Dorkyman on 10/23/2013 11:51:11 AM , Rating: 4
No, not agreed.

The models are a lousy fit and the most devoted adherents to the Climate Change Religion are currently scratching their heads, wondering why the climate refuses to follow the models.

Trust me, many followers treat it as a religion, and as such there is a strong "faith" aspect that defies introspection and challenge.

Yes, there are Skeptics who are bible-thumping buffoons, but they are on the fringes. So try to keep an open mind. That's probably the most important attribute a scientist can have.


RE: Trash Article
By heffeque on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Trash Article
By Spuke on 10/23/2013 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It has nothing to do with faith.
Re-read his post because that's not what he said at all.


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/24/2013 8:57:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, not agreed. The models are a lousy fit and the most devoted adherents to the Climate Change Religion are currently scratching their heads, wondering why the climate refuses to follow the models.


There is no Climate Change Religion. The fact you bring up religion at all equates a science reliant on the Scientific Method with Christianity that is reliant on people blindly believing that a magician turned water into wine 2000 years ago.

One can be proven or disproven. The other is an article of faith. As a Catholic (and a firm believer!) I know the difference. Of course, the Jesus I know, the guy who ran around the countryside in utter poverty preaching to bureaucrats, thieves, prostitutes, adulterers and corrupt politicians about giving away all their worldly possessions and helping the poor and oppressed would hardly recognise religion for what it's become as a political toy in America.

quote:
Trust me, many followers treat it as a religion, and as such there is a strong "faith" aspect that defies introspection and challenge. Yes, there are Skeptics who are bible-thumping buffoons, but they are on the fringes. So try to keep an open mind. That's probably the most important attribute a scientist can have.


There are those who confuse science and religion at both extremes. What's important is not painting everyone with the same brush. Am I expected to despise and loathe all Republicans for the doings one small group of lunatics in Congress? I hope not. Yet that's what modern politics wants. I support gay marriage, I think universal healthcare is a worthy goal, and being descended from immigrants fleeing a potato famine I don't feel the slightest hostility towards immigrants at all. I also think Evolution is a clever and good theory. Apparently that makes me a Democrat despite disagreeing with most of their economic policies.

If someone marries a Republican with a Scientist and throws in a little Christian, I'd vote for them over any Democrat. Unfortunately common sense and charity has deserted the right in the past decade.

For the obvious, climate change is real. That's not even debated by wackos any more. The debate focuses on whether it's natural or cause by Humans. The evidence to date is heavily in favor of Humans being the root cause. You also very neatly failed to elaborate on the flat temperatures over the past decade - they are flat. There is reversal of global warming - just a 10 year weird flatness in a science which examines centuries. Learn a wee bit of statistics - temporary fluctuations do not negate a long term trend. Any moron with basic math should know that. The cause of the flatness is a huge topic in climate science which is good. It means the theories and models are wrong and need revising. That's good science - not blind faith inviting us to ignore the obvious because of our gut feelings and what some idiot on the TV says.


RE: Trash Article
By bah12 on 10/23/2013 1:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings.
Your own point of view is one of faith. It isn't the party claiming there is a giant pink elephant in the room that needs to prove it, it is the party that is claiming there is.

In other words you cannot say something is true, simply because the opposition cannot prove it isn't. If I claim there is a God/Pink Elephant/Global warming, then it is up to me to prove it 100% not the other way around.

Your illogical position is the one of faith. Your side postulates a theory, but instead of defending its flaws resorts to a faith based argument of "prove you're right then".


RE: Trash Article
By Yojimbo on 10/23/2013 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Everything has to do with faith. Science is a matter of bounding the faith required. And how much to this end has climate science accomplished so far? Their predictions seem to be grossly wrong more often than not. They have fit the historical data extremely well, but they are unable to tell us anything about the future. Give me enough parameters to play with and I can fit any historical data of anything extremely well, but that doesn't mean I know a lick about what it all means. So, then, what does their failure tell us about the usefulness of their models? And how can we implement policies based on these models in light of these failures? It seems it requires an awful lot of faith.


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/24/2013 9:30:37 AM , Rating: 3
Faith and science are mutual enemies. Anyone who allows faith to influence science is being stupid. Incidentally, Einstein himself made this mistake more than once. While an agnostic, he believed that the Universe was entirely deterministic. This pushed him into rejecting quantum theory where things devolve into probabilities and unpredictable outcomes. Guess what - he was wrong. God does indeed play dice with every single particle in the Universe.

The problem is that your argument requires the vast majority of scientists to make this same mistake at the same time. That's just ridiculous and into conspiracy theory territory. You simply WANT it to be true which makes you just as mistaken as Einstein once was in creating elaborate excuses.

quote:
They have fit the historical data extremely well, but they are unable to tell us anything about the future.


They tell us the future will be warmer. That prediction has held true since it was first made decades ago. A flat temperature for a decade doth not a cooler planet make.

quote:
Give me enough parameters to play with and I can fit any historical data of anything extremely well, but that doesn't mean I know a lick about what it all means.


Doesn't even make sense. The data is based on physical measurements. They don't mutate. Any scientist can grab the raw data which is why manipulation, if it ever were to occur, would require every scientist on the planet to be part of the conspiracy.

quote:
So, then, what does their failure tell us about the usefulness of their models? And how can we implement policies based on these models in light of these failures? It seems it requires an awful lot of faith.


Which failure? What model? Whose policies?

Data damn it. Science demands DATA. Stop suggesting evildoing and be specific. Let's take the obvious. The new IPCC projections have been reduced from the last report commissioned. Rationally, that means the last batch of models used in climate science were wrong. This also implies the new set are also wrong. Of course they’re wrong. Find a scientist telling you they are right and please, by all means, shoot the liar. Gravity is also wrong. We don’t know what it is – we just have a really good model to explain it. Relativity. We know that Einstein was wrong because relativity and quantum theory cannot be reconciled. Our two best MODELS for understanding the Universe – approximations, failed predictions, WRONG.

We still use them for predictions though. Luckily, at the scale we currently need for technology and space travel they are actually very good. Try building a faster than light engine, a wormhole to another galaxy or universe, or building a CPU which manipulates quarks, and they suck eggs.

We use the best models available knowing that they are wrong but probably reliable enough for our current needs. To a scientist it’s wholly unsatisfactory but you can’t spend the next million years stuck with “Zeus is angry and throwing lightning bolts!” or “magic make red food fall from tree when sun god tired” while we wait for a completely accurate FACT to emerge.

Climate science is no different. We work with what we have. The alternative is waiting a few thousand years for a fully complete understanding. Of course, your descendants might all have evolved gills by then if the worst came to pass ;).


RE: Trash Article
By Yojimbo on 10/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:03:13 PM , Rating: 3
His point is actually well stated. Global warming is largely a religion, which can be defined by believing something that is not or cannot be proven by science.

The whole article is about this UN lady who "believes" something to be true even though science does not back her up.

How is that NOT faith?


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/25/2013 4:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists also believe that there was a Big Bang, that the Universe will expand forever, that there are multiple universes, that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light (Inflation), that all particles are probably strings, that black holes conserve information on their surface, that life does not require God, that an itty bitty amino acid can grow into you after 4 billion years of evolution, and ...

Welcome to Science. We have a theory for everything. Theories are not beliefs - they are our best understanding of the universe given the data we can currently access. Once you figure that out, you'll realise how utterly ridiculous you sound in playing the religion card. Unlike science, nobody can ever prove if that vagrant in sandals really did rise from the dead 2000 years ago.

Lastly, the article clearly stated the "UN lady" is not a scientist. If you think she represents science and thus validates your own dataless belief, you're seriously mistaken.


RE: Trash Article
By troysavary on 10/23/2013 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 4
What "real science"? Computer models that have been consistently wrong? A "hockey stick" graph? Falsified data? Only taking temperature reading from urban reporting stations? You tell me when I hit on the "real science" that you are bringing to the table.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Trash Article
By ResStellarum on 10/23/2013 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Geez, where on earth do you get your information from, Alex Jones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temper... Yeah, look at that gross manipulation of data from urban stations.

And if I draw a line from 1998 to 2013 and beyond it will look the exact opposite.

Oh no! The Ice Age is coming:
http://imgur.com/kmLSrUU


RE: Trash Article
By heffeque on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
You mean... like the falsified data from the PRO-warming crowd?

See, this is what bugs sane people about this whole global warming debate.

The PRO-warming crowd lies and fails to prove their case.
BUT:
--They act like it's proven
--They belittle and harass those who disagree
--They want the world to jump to conclusions and base policy on those conclusions

There are people on the ANTI-warming side who are a bit nuts too, but I haven't heard of any falsified data. I've heard more rhetoric and talk than anything.

Then there is the rest of us who simply want people to actual prove something before the whole tax payer base is required to shell out a lot of money to fund it.

I.E. Stop lying, stop trying to take my money, stop trying to guilt me into believing your way, stop trying to use politics to force everyone else into this global warming religion.

I think it's humorous that the same people who use faith to buy into global warming are quick to bash more traditional religions. But then... I guess that's human nature.


RE: Trash Article
By bug77 on 10/23/2013 11:45:41 AM , Rating: 3
Man, are you in state of disarray.

1. Nobody (in their right mind) says climate isn't changing. It always has and always will be. What is questioned is whether humans have any influence in the process.
2. All the science you hold dear did not predict temperature flat lining for a decade. For any reason. And it doesn't tell us how hot will be in 2050 for example. All their predictions so far were off. But it is absolutely sure increased CO2 will kill us all (so to speak).
3. Skeptics don't have to prove anything. Whoever brings a theory to the table does. That's how it works. Otherwise, you may find yourself jailed for murder tomorrow and asked to prove your innocence.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/2013 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All the science you hold dear did not predict temperature flat lining for a decade.
This "flatlining" myth is nothing but cherry picking, usually including the 1998 anomalous peak in the trendline.

In 2008, DailyTech produced a slew of articles talking about a "cooling trend" over the last decade:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cooling+trend+site...
Those predictions turned out to be complete busts.

Then DT went completely silent about trends in 2010, because that 1998 peak fell out of the decade span, so trends would show high warming.

Now? All of a sudden 15 years is the period of choice, and warming is "flatlining". But that's running out of steam as well, because by mid 1999, the record El Nino had completely passed.

I predict that by spring 2014, skeptics will move goal posts again, using either 16 years or 10 years as their period of choice.

FYI, here's a satellite temperature record from a skeptic site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/uah-v5-6-globa...


RE: Trash Article
By ResStellarum on 10/23/2013 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This "flatlining" myth is nothing but cherry picking, usually including the 1998 anomalous peak in the trendline.

So you're admitting that it's possible to cherry pick a timeline to get whatever trend you want. Thanks, now I can safely ignore all those BS hockey-stick graphs you alarmists keep pumping out.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I'm not an alarmist. Go look at my other posts in this thread. AGW is real, but the benefits of preventing it are far too small for the cost of doing so. Humanity needs to (and will) adapt and move on.

Secondly, the tree-ring hockey-stick data is irrelevant. It isn't used for predictions, modelling, proof, nothing. So please retire that strawman.

Finally, why does anyone have to do any cherry-picking? Why not just look at the entire satellite data record?


RE: Trash Article
By Chyort on 10/23/2013 9:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
yes, 3 decades or so of satellite records will tell us everything... Mankind has only been thumping around this earth for millennia, which in itself is nothing but a flash in the pan compared to the age of the earth...

Ignore the fact that the earth heats and cools all the time, that we have had multiple ice ages and corresponding thawings.
My graph shows we have gone up a fraction of a degree in recent history, so clearly it will keep going up exactly the same amount, and in 30 years we will all be dead!
*Eyeroll*

Perhaps you are an alarmist, perhaps not. I dont care enough to check. But, at this point, there really isn't enough data. Trying to point at satellite records as proof is fairly ignorant, considering exactly how small a window it really is in our history. A fact that keeps being proven every time someone claims rampant global warming(Or global cooling, google it for a laugh) and insists the only way to fix the problem is to throw more money at it.

That is the problem, alarmists on both sides trying to justify a paycheck, and provide the results their political masters want. Instead of doing it for pure science.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/24/2013 1:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ignore the fact that the earth heats and cools all the time, that we have had multiple ice ages and corresponding thawings.
Those don't even have 1/10th the rate of temperature change we see in the satellite record.

quote:
That is the problem, alarmists on both sides trying to justify a paycheck, and provide the results their political masters want. Instead of doing it for pure science.
Once again, what is your proof that there is so much more corruption in climate science than any other science? These accusations are pathetic.

I guarantee you that medicine/biology and engineering are fields where individuals have orders of magnitude more financial gain at stake with experimental outcome.


RE: Trash Article
By SPOOFE on 10/24/2013 4:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those don't even have 1/10th the rate of temperature change we see in the satellite record.

The satellite record has been around for a geologically insignificant period of time, far too short to derive any conclusions. For someone so concerned about "cherry picking", you sure seem way too eager to go about "cherry picking" yourself.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/25/2013 2:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Chyort is the one who is using geological events to ignore the satellite record, not me. If you're going to do that, then you have to find evidence that this rate of temperature rise is at least somewhat common.

You obviously don't understand what cherry picking means. It involves selecting a subset of available data.

Skeptics don't like the surface record, so the satellite record is all we have, and as long as the whole set is used, it's not cherry picking.


RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
I predict that in the next ten years there will be another alarmist, the-sky-is-falling, global warming or cooling, or peak oil, or whatever.

Why? Because the people up the ladder need things to use to distract the masses and keep them busy and panicked while they fleece them.

You don't have to live very long to see the pattern. Every other year there is a new fear-fad. There is a new way to manipulate people.

I've been ignoring this BS for years and so far, I can always look back and see how false the claims were and how stupid people were for jumping on the bandwagon.

I'm a skeptic because I see liars all around me and I'm cynical. Prove it and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.


RE: Trash Article
By Florinator on 10/23/2013 11:47:27 AM , Rating: 4
Oh, but there is plenty of evidence... While the Arctic ice sheet is getting thinner, the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker and no one says a peep about that. Mount Shasta has a lot more snow because of increased precipitation in the area (it's not all drought and fire everywhere).

Take a look here, if anything, the number of skeptics has increased over the last years, not decreased.

http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html


RE: Trash Article
By ResStellarum on 10/23/2013 2:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
They conveniently ignore facts like those Florinator. It doesn't fit in with their policy of selective disclosure.

It's like there's never been a drought in history before lol. What about the one that, you know, ended the Pharaohs. That must of been caused by all the carbon produced by those camp fires surely?? Hehe


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:42:59 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone who uses single events to prove or disprove global warming is an idiot. Period.


RE: Trash Article
By Chyort on 10/23/2013 9:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who tries to use 30 years of satellite records to prove Artificial Global Warming is an idiot. Period.

Anyone who makes statements like this, and ends it with "Period." is an idiot as well... (Yes, this includes me)


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/24/2013 1:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think that's the only proof?

As far as I can see, you don't even know the basics of AGW.


RE: Trash Article
By SPOOFE on 10/24/2013 4:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I can see, you don't even know the basics of AGW.

As far as I can see, you don't even know the basics of significant geological development, else you wouldn't be harping on "the satellite record" so much.

When your satellites give us a few thousand years' worth of data then we'll all drop to our knees and praying to The Great Gore to forgive our carbon sins.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/25/2013 2:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
The satellite record is the only thing denialists will accept as evidence of temperature. They don't like surface measurements, tree rings, ice cores, isotopes, etc. That's the only reason I mention it.

If satellite evidence on geological time scales is the only evidence that you will accept, then step out of the thread and STFU, because there is no possible measurement in your lifetime that will ever prove AGW to you.


RE: Trash Article
By Dr of crap on 10/23/2013 12:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is you can take that data AND prove both points. That being that there is and that there is not planet warming. Its all in how you set the data up!

Since we Don't know YET lets just drop the fighting - PLEASE!!!!!!!


RE: Trash Article
By Tony Swash on 10/23/2013 1:02:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
they throw a fit and use words like alarmism as their reason for why climate change doesn't exist. The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings. Climate change is real, it has already been proven by science.


Nobody claims that climate change is not happening. The two main issues are:

a) How much was the recent warm period at the end of the 20th century caused by human CO2 emissions and how much was it caused by natural climate fluctuation.

b) Are the risks of ongoing warming so great so as to justify the costs associated with significantly reducing CO2 emissions.

There is an ancillary controversy about how accurate the global land surface temperature is in the period prior to satellite measurements and thus how much warming there really was in the last 150 years but that is a much less important issue and usually revolves around arguments about a fraction of one degree C.

On point (a). The whole argument to support the theory that the bulk of the warming at the end of the 20th century was caused by human CO2 emissions is based upon climate models. The actual amount or rate of warming during the 20th century is not unusual by recent climate history standards and so the argument that it requires something other than natural factors (called forcings in climatologist speak) in order to be explained rests upon the various climate computer models that climatologists have built. These models claim to show that no known natural forcing agent could have caused the late 20th century warming and as it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which was increasing in the period in question the conclusion was reached by some that CO2 was the culprit.

What's important to bear in mind is that climate models are not evidence. Climate models are just theories written in the form of equations and algorithms and like all theories climate models require confirmation by comparison to actual real world data. Here the models have run into difficulty as the models confidently predicted a number of things, including an ongoing warming trend and a reduction in sea ice around Antarctica, which did not happen. Global temperatures have now not shown any warming trend for over 15 years even though CO2 has continued to rise and sea ice around Antarctica has not only grown but just recently reached a new all time record. So perfectly reasonable people are wondering just how good the climate models are and if they contain significant flaws then the foundation of the position that CO2 is the main driver of warming becomes very shaky indeed.

On point (b) even if CO2 is a major driver of warming the issue of the costs/benefits of decarbonisation is one that should be debated. If as looks likely the climate CO2 sensitivity is not as high as was feared then we have ample time to literally power ahead with global economic growth so that when we have to adapt to a significantly warmer world later in the century we will be doing so from a much stronger economic position. I think that anyone who looks at the statistics of global poverty must agree that global poverty, which is killing tens of millions right now every year, is the major issue facing humanity and an issue that can only be addressed by more growth, more energy and a greater exploitation of all energy sources including fossil fuels.


RE: Trash Article
By foxalopex on 10/23/2013 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that poverty isn't helping the situation at all. People who are poor have no choice but to destroy the environment to survive. When it comes down to the planet or their immediate ability to live, it's understandable that they would pick the latter.

BUT at the same time realize that exploiting all available resources will NOT help either. Due to the way our civilization is built, even if you exploited all the resources, there will always be the elite with an uneven share of the resources. They will simply take more at the top and leave the same mess to the folks at the bottom. I know a lot of folks would like to believe we left nature and the survival of the fittest law to nature but in many ways we still sadly live out that rule in our daily modern lives.


RE: Trash Article
By Dorkyman on 10/25/2013 11:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, Tony.

There's another factor: I think it was a study released in the UK a week or two ago that concluded that an increase in global temps would be a net GAIN for humanity, not a calamity. I haven't seen the study itself, only heard about it, but apparently it was very objectively written.


RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
BS. There is some science, but it gets discredited when they ignore some other science and insert their own agenda and some lies into the mix.

What do you expect? If you have a scientific point, then prove it without bias. Otherwise even if you're partially right, nobody believes you.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki