Previous 21 - 30 Next
rightmostofthetime, I consider AGW to be the phlogiston of the 20th/21st centuries. Phlogiston was once considered settled science until someone discovered oxygen and oxidation.
rightmostofthetime, I agree. The problem with computer models is that you need to have a good understanding of the system you want to model if you are to write a computer program than can accurately model that system. It is my understanding that our understanding of the climate system is still somewhat fuzzy in some areas such that an accurate model is still iffy. Since we don't have a clear understanding of the entire system, it follows that we cannot model that system. As a result, the computer programs cannot accurately model the system. Ergo, garbage in, garbage out. The biggest problem I have with the proponents of AGW is simply the way that they insist that they are right based on consensus rather than the strength of their evidence. True science has never worked that way. Methinks they do protest too much. Of course, I just hold a lowly BS in Computer Science so they will just shout me down as not being a climate scientist.
In response to:

The Angels Cried for Caroline

Pat2881 Wrote: Feb 15, 2014 12:02 AM
ca7, it is not necessary for you to either understand or agree with this woman's decision. Over the years, I have heard many stories of women who chose to bear a child knowing that to do so would put their lives as risk. Some of these women are women of faith and others are not. Some have been aware of their condition before becoming pregnant and others have not. Some have delayed chemotherapy for cancer because it would put the child at risk. Others have various disorders that would put the mother's life at risk. Many of them have ultimately lost their lives in order to give life to their child. It is not for us to judge their choice. I do applaud their courage in making such a decision knowing that they are choosing to place their life at risk to give life to their child.
In response to:

The Angels Cried for Caroline

Pat2881 Wrote: Feb 14, 2014 11:56 PM
Besides being off topic, the comment is simply offensive. Most people, including conservatives, do not support the idea that someone can shoot another person for throwing popcorn at them. Personally, I hope this guy spends a very long time in jail if the evidence supports such a conviction. His fate is ultimately up to the jury that hears the case.
RiffRaff, who is to say that Obama wouldn't decide to implement the law early simply because he likes it? He's already using executive orders to get things done when Congress doesn't give him what he wants. What is to keep him from doing an early enforcement of immigration?
McGovern, given the state of our economy and job outlook, I think they are just going home because they can't find work. In Obamaspeak, this counts as deporting illegals.
Doug, in a word, no. The Scriptures tell us that "there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death." I am paraphrasing of course, but there are so many other Scriptures that make it clear. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If you reject the path, are on the wrong road, and die without repentance, the Scriptures are pretty clear about where you are going. If you choose the broad way to destruction, you shouldn't be surprised at what meets you at the end of that road. It won't be anything containing anything resembling wings, clouds or harps.
In response to:

Vulnerable Dems Can't Take Obamacare Heat

Pat2881 Wrote: Feb 09, 2014 10:51 AM
For most of them, they have become the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive party cheerleading squad. Why let a little thing like journalistic integrity get in the way of supporting your party?
In response to:

Vulnerable Dems Can't Take Obamacare Heat

Pat2881 Wrote: Feb 09, 2014 10:50 AM
Hey, it's not a lie if you cross your fingers behind your back while you're saying it. Everybody who ever went to elementary school knows that. Some of us just outgrew those silly playground rules. Unfortunately for us, Democrats never grew up and keep playing by those playground rules. Then they blame us for being silly enough to believe them. Equally unfortunately, the game has far greater consequences now that it did when we were on the playground.
In response to:

The Pause That Refreshes

Pat2881 Wrote: Feb 06, 2014 12:23 PM
While I enjoyed the commercial, and I am a member of a diverse family that includes individuals from many ethnic backgrounds, I would argue that we need a common language to truly unite us. While I have no problem with immigrants who speak their native language in their homes or communities, I do believe that we need a common language to unite us as a people. When we provide education, commerce, banking, driver's licensing, and any number of other public services in multiple languages, we do nothing more than handicap the new immigrant by leaving him/her in a situation that limits his/her capacity to succeed in this country. How many of our universities offer complete academic programs in languages other than English? How does the non-English-speaking immigrant drive long distances and understand the road signs along the way? How many businesses have the ability to accommodate multiple foreign-language speakers either as customers or as employees? I love the sound of Spanish since I grew up hearing it in the Southwest. I have studied the language as well. I can't speak it worth a darn, but it is a beautiful language. Having visited Spain, I also know that I had difficulty finding my way around on my own when I was not fluent in the local language. The same applies to immigrants who come here. To fully participate in our society, they need to speak the language of our country, and that language is English.
In response to:

Monsters Hiding in Plain Sight

Pat2881 Wrote: Feb 06, 2014 10:21 AM
rfisher205, pedophilic disorder is still in the DSM. While there was some discussion about removing it, the entire committee charged with writing the DSM rejected the calls of those who wanted to omit it. It is still listed as 302.2 Pedophilic Disorder in DSM5. Having said that, we still need to be vigilant. Homosexual behavior also used to be listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. Through powerful lobbying efforts, homosexuals were successful in getting it removed. While it is much harder to put a nice face on pedophiles, if it ever happens, we will probably see pedophilia removed from the DSM. After all, people still watch movies made by Roman Polanski and Woody Allen. If we were really serious about protecting our children, these men would not be making millions off the money we spend for tickets to see their movies. I haven't been to a movie that I knew was connected to either of these men for years, not since I learned of their appetite for sex with children.
Previous 21 - 30 Next