BrockSamson

Forum Members
  • Content count

    3,196
  • 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

5,175 profile views
  1. Never too late, man. Make it your mission to learn Piano Man, takes lessons, and practice. 40-year old you will thank 30-something you.
  2. You're half right! A one year sample is not evidence. And, indeed, the literature on hurricanes is interesting, but uncertain. While warmer sea surface temperatures (SST) would, in a vacuum, lead to more frequent hurricane formation, a warming world may also see greater wind shear, which hampers hurricane formation. Increased wind shear is why El Nino years already lead to quieter Atlantic hurricane seasons. We just had an extended El Nino, beginning in 2014 and ending in 2016, thus it's not surprising we saw relatively quiet Atlantic hurricane seasons. This year is not an El Nino year, so it's not surprising it's more active. Projections of climate change on hurricane formation are uncertain; the prevailing idea is that hurricane frequency, generally, will either stay the same or decrease, but that because of warmer SST and rising sea levels, we may see an increase in stronger hurricanes and certain impacts may get worse. How this will impact the frequency of landfalling hurricanes is even less certain. But it should be noted that the first part of this projection is the most uncertain, while the latter is less uncertain. That is, we're not as sure about the frequency of hurricane formation, but we're more sure that because of rising sea levels and warmer SST, hurricanes that do form are more likely to grow stronger and have greater impacts. Take this summation from the recent IPCC SREX (and follow the link for more discussion and citation): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-Chap3_FINAL.pdf On the other hand, I disagree that this is not the time to discuss this. The news cycle will soon move on, interest will wane, and if we're going to meaningfully impact people's views, we have to discuss issues while we have their attention, as Naomi Klein argues here: HARVEY DIDN’T COME OUT OF THE BLUE. NOW IS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
  3. Good lord, you really will cling to any headline or misleading article to support your delusions. From the article abstract (i.e., the actual scientific article, not the misleading summary thereof): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true So just so you understand what you're actually so excited about, this devastating expose asserts: 1) man made global warming is very, very real, 2) to keep it below catastrophic levels would take historically unprecedented action incorporating an ambitious mitigation scenario, 3) that scenario being RCP 2.6 which, because I know you don't know this, is one of the IPCC's Representative Concentration Pathways, and is, in fact, the one which assumes the greatest level of mitigation of any of the IPCC pathways - that is, huge reductions in the use of coal and oil. But the article is good in that it suggests if we commit to that, we might avoid catastrophic climate change. So, I'm glad to see you're on board with aggressive mitigation of climate change through historically unprecedented reductions in fossil fuel use. And also, this is just one article, one piece of evidence to include in the fold, that relies on the kind of models and margins of error you usually dismiss. In other news:
  4. Sure, but only if we can also post gifs of Lrrr, leader of Omicron Persei 8.
  5. So, marketing is a big reason why there has been such a backlash to the movie, and why it got an F on Cinemascore. Like a lot of difficult/strange movies, no one knew how to market it, so they went with a 70's era scare/psychological thriller theme. Viewers are thus going in, based on the previews and marketing, with some sort of preconception of what it is. When the movie didn't meet those expectations, they responded negatively.
  6. I really enjoyed Black Swan and The Wrestler, but wasn't a big fan of Requiem for a Dream. I haven't seen The Fountain, Noah, or Pi. Even in Requiem, though, I recognize the sort of artistry and singular vision that we should celebrate in movies, even if the end result doesn't necessarily accord with my aesthetics. As I thought might happen, mother! has stuck with me these past couple of days, forcing me to dig deeper into what I took away from it (leaving aside Aronofsky's and Lawerence's refreshingly explicit discussion of its meaning). I'm not sure I'll ever come to really enjoy it - I still think it's a bit too on the nose for me. But there's no doubt that, like with Requiem, I appreciate Aronofsky's vision and refusal to accept anything less. Also, kudos to Paramount for having the courage to support and release it.
  7. Do you use "satanic" the way satanists use it, or as in "followers of satan, i.e., the Devil"? Either way, it's stupid. Just trying to understand which kind of stupid it is.
  8. Documenting that this is a literal thing someone said once.
  9. I don't think this is a spoiler, but in any event, one review said:
  10. Just saw mother! last night. I think I thought it was a pretentious piece of directorial masturbation. But there is a small part of me that thinks maybe I thought it was a bat**** crazy completely unique moviegoing experience that I'll like more upon further consideration.
  11. Say what you will about Deadspin and Kinja generally, they know how to write a headline: The White House And ******* Tucker Carlson And That Dilbert ****head And All The Rest Of Them Won't Stop Talking About "MSESPN," They Won't Stop, They Will Never Stop, And The Sweet Release Of The Void Is Calling
  12. So he wants us to think he's an easily manipulated moron?
  13. What's worse, it's almost certainly this pillow: