Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google
If someone says "The Ancient Egyptians did not ever land on the Moon" and you ask for a citation, it does not make it any better that you don't have good arguments you are willing to state for ancient Egyptians being on the Moon. It actually proves the point that you are citation trolling and wasting the other party's time. Doubly so if they actually take the time to find one and you don't even bother to read it.
If someone says "The Ancient Egyptians did not ever land on the Moon" and you ask for a citation, it does not make it any better that you don't have good arguments you are willing to state for ancient Egyptians being on the Moon. It actually proves the point that you are citation trolling and wasting the other party's time. Doubly so if they actually take the time to find on
I politely asked for the page number, and you kindly quoted the relevant portion for me to read. And I DID read section you quoted for me.
I never got around to thanking you because you decided to launch into a personal attack against me instead.
Which is fine, because you can be (unintentionally) funny when you're hot and bothered:
'Complete bad faith weaponization of asking for a source'
Anyhoo, make it a great day!
That the prominent putative examples of ancient depictions of dinosaurs cited by Creationists do not depict actual dinosaurs but have far better interpretations of what is being depicted.
(I also looked into one in Singapore that I believe was not cited in the article.)
Which changed very little because you were not claiming that any cave paintings of dinosaurs had been found anywhere.
Which changed very little because you were not claiming that any cave paintings of dinosaurs had been found anywhere.
I agree my position changed very little after reading your citation (plus another short article).
I had read some Creationist literature over the years claiming that there were ancient depictions of dinosaurs, but never looked into those claims.
I've never had a strong opinion on the matter one way or another.
So rather than look into it yourself or posting positive claims from creationists you expect others to do the much harder job of providing a citation proving a pseudo-scientific negative on a subject you don't actually care all that much about.
So rather than look into it yourself or posting positive claims from creationists you expect others to do the much harder job of providing a citation proving a pseudo-scientific negative on a subject you don't actually care all that much about.
First off, I wasn't the one who even brought up the subject of dinosaurs in the first place. I was asking for a citation from the person who did bring it up:
Why are there cave paintings of the largest animals those humans encountered but none of dinosaurs?
What is your source for the claim that no cave paintings of dinosaurs have been discovered?
Secondly, you chose to provide a citation , even though I never asked you to do that. (And I appreciate that you provided that source, and said so at the time.)
Thirdly, Happy Independence Day!!
Let's roll the tape:
1. I asked for a citation.
2. You kindly provided a citation, even though you weren't asked to.
3. I read the abstract, but didn't want to try to read a 14-page technical article, and politely asked you for a page number.
4. You kindly provided the relevant passage that answered my question.
5. Then you went into a personal attack against me out of nowhere even before I could thank you for kindly providing the relevant passage.
Is there anything factually mistaken in my account of events given above?
“I asked for a citation even though I’m not interested in even trying to learn or read it for an uncontroversial claim I already understood scientists held”. Anything wrong with that?
Chart showing the number of times 40C has been recorded in France
The next heat wave is scheduled mid-month and may be worse than the one just concluded.
“I asked for a citation even though I’m not interested in even trying to learn or read it for an uncontroversial claim I already understood scientists held”. Anything wrong with that?
So, you're not going to answer my question? Kewl!
I realize answering my question would make you look bad, so I understand your evasion.
Anyhoo, have a grateful Independence Day! Have fun and be safe!
So, you're not going to answer my question? Kewl!
I realize answering my question would make you look bad, so I understand your evasion.
Anyhoo, have a grateful Independence Day! Have fun and be safe!
I dispute that my citation was “technical”. It was highly readable with no background in paleontology or anthropology. Asking for a citation then complaining that’s it’s too technical to read is ridiculous. I also disagree with the notion that I attacked you. After you didn’t read the citation that I put in effort to find that you again did not read I informed of the low standard I hold you to that you are still falling below. If that offends you be better. Was my summary factually incorrect?
Thanks for answering my question. This is will be final round with you on this topic, so you can have the last word on this if you so choose.
I dispute that my citation was “technical”. It was highly readable with no background in paleontology or anthropology. Asking for a citation then complaining that’s it’s too technical to read is ridiculous.
I guess I'm just a ridiculous person. I read the part you highlighted and that answered my question sufficiently. (In addition to another article I found that was easy to read.)
I also disagree with the notion that I attacked you. After you didn’t read the citation that I put in effort to find that you did not read I informed of the low standard I hold you to that you are still falling below.
Which I thanked you for providing for me, even though I never asked you to provide it in the first place. And like I said above the part you edited from the longer article answered my question. (Which I would have thanked you for straight away if you hadn't turned a friendly discussion into an unnecessary personal attack. (I'll let the readers decide for themselves if they thought it was a personal attack. )
If that offends you be better.
I wasn't offended at all. I can't be offended by what some anonymous person in an internet forum says about me. I suspect you're the same way, but who knows?
Was my summary factually incorrect?
I disagree with your characterization of the facts, much like you disagreed with my characterization of the facts. I'm more than happy for the readers to reach their own conclusions on the matter, since I'm obviously more than a little bit biased.
Anyhoo, have a safe and sane Fourth!!
Philadelphia hit 101F+ for the 3rd consecutive day. Never happened before.
If a child is raised under the supervision of an entire village, then there is no need to fire parents. If a child wants to leave a village, then there should be a process of appeal available to them and the opportunity for them to seek membership in another village. I'm imagining a world in which people can choose to live in a community compatible with their preferences. So, a
There’s not much doubt in my mind that raising children communally is far better for the child and for the community than the western model of the nuclear family, but it’s a very bad fit for capitalist societies.
There’s not much doubt in my mind that raising children communally is far better for the child and for the community than the western model of the nuclear family, but it’s a very bad fit for capitalist societies.
You mean raising children in extended families or actual communal raising them?
The US island territory of Rota (between Guam and Saipan) is being pummeled by 180 mph Cat 5 Bavi.
The enlightened European strikes again
The politicisation of air conditioning[283] reignited, with right-wing politicians in multiple countries championing the technology and characterising resistance to its adoption as a misguided left-wing project.[284] Marine Le Pen vowed to "put into place a massive air-conditioning plan" if elected president of France;[284] left-wing leader Jean-Luc Melenchon instead declared, "I won't put my kid or my granddaughter or my great-granddaughter somewhere with air conditioning from morning to night!"[285] The mostly left-wing government of Ghent initially advised residents to "avoid air-conditioners", but removed the advice after an enquiry from the New York Times.[284] CNN reported that mass adoption of air conditioning could set the European Union back from its goal of climate neutrality by 2050.[286] Energy cost also presents a significant barrier to wider adoption, and a plurality of respondents to an EU-wide survey said they could not afford to cool their homes.[287]
The lack of air conditioning in some European countries baffled many Americans.[288] Similarly, Chinese social media contrasted the situation in Europe with the one in China, where air conditioning is so widely adopted that it is even used in barns and pig stalls.[289] Focusing on France, some commentators diagnosed a supposed French psychological propensity to embrace suffering, which led to recriminations that the prevalence of air conditioning in the United States evinced greed or decadence.[290][291] Le Monde noted that air conditioning is widely viewed in France as a maladaptation to climate change, but that the 2026 heat wave engendered more public discussion of the rôle of air conditioning in the country.[285] French resistance toward air conditioning may be influenced by a superstition of choc thermique ("thermal shock") the supposed tendency for air conditioning to cause fainting, nausea, or viral illness by virtue of the temperature differential moving from outdoors to indoors.[292][293] The superstition was promoted by French media organisations.[294] Furthermore, a superstition persists in Europe more widely that cold air causes illness;[295] in reality, illnesses such as influenza and colds are caused by viruses.[296]
33 consecutive days of date records
