Mikeyavelli

Gates is getting a divorce. Think of the legal fees and awards. Bill probably controlled Melinda right outta there. What woman would ever marry a man who calls his company micro, and soft? Maybe she wants a man now. She can probably buy one.

son of witless

It's funny observing " you " defending evil American Corporate Capitalism. Since they are not silencing your side, suddenly you are no longer a Socialist. Extremely funny.

Mikeyavelli

Surprising to see corporations siding with their executioners and white people proudly positioning their swords to fall on them in the name of r****m.

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

Woody I agree with you. Your opinion don't mean a thing

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

You have to be the most boring poster on OPP.

kemmer

After J** 6th, there’s obviously a segment of the population that needs to be told what to do with accrued penalties.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

I hope that your wife beat the cancer.

Just a note, if you're now addicted to drinking bleach, something was lost in t***slation.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

It's truly sad that you are told to believe that the B*M/A****a goon brigade is justified in their repeated violent and destructive behaviors...

If you actually think that J** 6 was more violent, then you are wrong again,.. Pure Goofyness must be rewarding to you some how.

son of witless

The bigger the corporation the more likely they are to be in bed with low lives, criminals, F*****ts and Marxists. I watch a lot of old WW2 movies and you always find references to American companies doing business with the N**is and Imperial Japan in the years before the war even though it was obvious we'd be fighting them soon.

Look at the media companies who promote Black L***s M****r, A****a, and i*****l i*********n. They figure they can control and profit from the radicals. What might happen in the far away future is not their concern.

3507

No.

There has to be a way to evaluate statements, that's all. I suggested ways.

3507

Right.

And, it's already a public health hazard.

Also, while it's spreading, it's mutating. That's good for its side of the war, and bad for us.

3507

You wrote: '... NEVER worship at the altar of science-too many changes-earth flat, then not- earth is central to the universe, then it isn't-too much that science cannot explain, and whose explanations change as more data is found, revealed or wh**ever. Opinions without "facts" to back them up are also, simply opinions-based perhaps on experience, belief system religion or wh**ever. Opinion and facts are not the same, never will be, and science and opinion are also not the same and never will be. The advice to "follow the science" especially in something none of those of us who are alive have ever seen or experienced is also bogus. There are no "experts", contrary to F***i's claims-because there is no one who knows anything for sure about how the v***s actually acts and reacts, is the v*****e good for a lifetime of protection or do you get one each year, as with a flu v******tion? We tally the experiences, the logical conclusions from testing, and make our best guess as to how to stay safe to the best of our ability. ...'

But I say:

Tallying the experiences _is_ science.

I say: Science just means learning carefully. (Literally the word might have originally meant "to know", but realistically it means to learn.)

When you say "... too many changes-earth flat, then not- ..." etc., you are expecting the wrong thing from "science". Science is _supposed_ to change as more is learned. It would be unrealistic to expect a "scientist" to immediately know some new thing with certainty without going through a learning process.

It would be wrong to give up on learning carefully.

There can be bureaucracies and politics and human weaknesses associated with a scientific establishment, and those things may sometimes have a bad influence on it. Good science (learning carefully) is a way to overcome such biases or human weaknesses. Science will have mistakes because learning has mistakes. Science is a progression (with setbacks and overcoming the setbacks) toward more or better knowledge.

jwrevagent

All true, and yet some people still think science is the answer, always, always and is always correct. That was my point-learning is great, as long as you are open to learning. But when "follow the science" is the mantra you live by, then you are no longer learning, you are being led and can rightfully be termed a sheep. We have a brain, we can use that brain to determine if what science is saying is in any way actually provable-if not, it is not science, it is conjecture or hypothesis. C*****e c****e is not science-there are possibilities in c*****e c****e that do not take into account man's actions-volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis are things that occur in the world that man does not cause nor control, but may have a huge impact on the climate for many years. So c*****e c****e as caused by f****l f**ls being the major culprit is simply not provable, and so it is conjecture, not science. I am not saying we should willy nilly send horrible stuff into the atmosphere, but the climate may or may not change as part of the result. So talking as though we have only 12 years left, as AOC claimed last year, unless we immediately stop using f****l f**ls, while other countries go their merry way dirtying up the atmosphere is foolish, silly and absolute nonsense. inho. of course, as always.

kemmer

So you didn’t notice how much clearer the skies were during the p******c’s lockdown?

3507

I disagree about the c*****e c****e part that you wrote. And it's not 12 years left; it's more like about -10 years left, in my opinion. That is, we lost our chance to preserve our environment for our children when we failed to change by about 10 years ago. Now we can only try to reduce the very large damage to something less large, which is still a very important task that we need to do.

As for the science about c*****e c****e: You discuss provability. But you should not expect absolute proof as though a planetary climate system could be reduced to some simple formula. Rather, some relatively small aspect of the planetary climate system might be studied and then a plausible theory can be developed for that aspect: so plausible that we can accept it as t***h to act on. Not with absolute certainty, but with a very great amount of confidence. Other people will study other aspects. Theories will get tested in various ways as time passes. And so on.

I agree that it's wrong to think that some big establishment is always correct. Science at any time is probably usually or mostly more correct than the science of a hundred years earlier (or even 5 years earlier). It is foolish to unthinkingly put absolute faith in anything that people say. It is wiser to adopt what looks most trustworthy, with a grain of salt (a bit of doubt reserved), until one finds the next thing that looks more trustworthy, and then consider converting to that better idea. And don't change course at every little thing that comes up. Try to find some idea that's stable enough that you can depend on it without having to change that basic idea all the time. All that's what I think.