BrockSamson

Forum Members
  • Content count

    2,559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

BrockSamson last won the day on October 17 2015

BrockSamson had the most liked content!

About BrockSamson

  • Rank
    Starting Lineup
  • Birthday 07/29/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,497 profile views
  1. It's fun just saying **** that isn't true! Because I'm reading the 1995 IPCC report, which gave a best estimate (among many, because they're not trying to give predictions, but rather projections) of about 19 inches of rise by 2100! That's about a foot and a half over what was, at that time, over 100 years. Absolutely nothing about it rising a foot over the next 20 years, and certainly nothing saying it would (because again, projections versus predictions). This was lower than the 1990 estimate because, as scientists are wont to do, they had more information on which to rely. They put the highest possible projection at 36 inches by 2100. The lowest was just over 12 inches by 2100. Then again, in 1990, they gave a best estimate of 20 cm by 2030, or just over half a foot in forty years. But you know, your made up BS is probably more reliable. https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
  2. This is ridiculous. Those reports are put together and edited by hundreds of scientists, with the assistance of hundreds of more, based on thousands of articles of research performed and written by thousands of scientists that in aggregate were previously reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists. Yes, economists are sometimes involved because, believe it or not, solutions require consideration of economics. You'd think that would be obvious. Of course, I could link to the individual articles, or other reports from other scientific organizations, but it's clear you'd just say the same thing, "blah blah blah, politically motivated, blah blah blah." Basically, you're asking for some unicorn of proof because such a stringent standard, in just this matter, aligns with your worldview.
  3. I'm not trying to pile on, but this sentence is really annoying me. In the most recent IPCC Assessment Report, there was a 1200+ page,16 chapter section (not including appendixes and such) just on Mitigation. There was a 1700+ page, 30 chapter section on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. The problem is not a lack of solutions from the scientific community, it is a lack of political will (primarily on the part of republicans) along with a well-funded and long-running misinformation campaign that includes delayers like Scott Pruitt. As to the notion that we just don't know how much humans are contributing, such that we should delay action until we know more, here are just a few conclusions from the most recent IPCC report: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely [i.e., 95–100% certain] that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
  4. Perchance if you actually read the science, you would see that the scientific community has proposed solutions for many, many, many years. And, Pruitt, like all delayers, is dead wrong: the science is also clear about the scope of man's contribution to modern warming. Is it 100% certain about the exact amount? Of course not, nothing in science ever is. But the science is about as certain as it gets that the majority (at least) of recent warming is due to man, and that without serious and rapid efforts to decrease and eliminate emissions, and potentially pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, warming will continue to increase leading to consequences that are destructive and potentially catastrophic.
  5. I'm literally excited for you. I want to see it again. Again.
  6. I'm not sure how much you've followed the climate thing, but he's a delayer, which is a particularly nefarious form of denial.
  7. My favorite:
  8. This will never not be hilarious.
  9. Good god, no! If you do that, someone might find her.
  10. Please someone find that thread and then post the movie poster here. That thing shouldn't go more than a month or so without being seen.
  11. I meant it both lovingly and in jest. As an aside, I generally find terms like "whore" and "slut" and such to be outdated and stupid. Sex is good, and fun, and no one should be ashamed for wanting to have lots of it.
  12. No one mentioned "lack" people. You, however, implicitly mentioned black people when referring to your paralyzing fear of the "area around Turner field."
  13. To at least be fair to the Pence types, because you're not monogamous with anyone, your going out with women in any context isn't comparable. You're not putting yourself in a position to be tempted, or rather, you are quite intentionally putting yourself in a position to be tempted, but not at the expense of anyone else. Now, you'll still burn in **** for being a hedonistic man whore, but at least you won't be a married man who will inevitably succumb to the inescapable temptation of rogering that naturally accompanies any meal with a woman. In my non-monogamy days (early to late twenties in Atlanta - good lord, that was fun), I had a few platonic lady friends who were awesome to hang out with one-on-one and in a wingwoman type situation. Now, I rarely hang out with anyone one-on-one for fun, woman or man, but I do routinely eat out with a couple female friends and colleagues.
  14. I don't have an irrational fear that every black person is ready and willing to kill me for no reason at a moment's notice, so no, I didn't fear for my life in the area around Turner field. I actually walked to and from games several times when I lived in Grant Park.