Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
It's not an unknown at all. And it's clear that for all your weasel words above in your last several posts, you're still a climate change denier too.
Space, because WTF earth.
- Thread starter xes
- Start date
It's not an unknown at all. And it's clear that for all your weasel words above in your last several posts, you're still a climate change denier too.
xes
F.O.A.D
I think it would take decades for most people to accept anything in that write up. It's too far against what most people believe. And yes of course I'm interested if it works. That's why I downloaded it in the first place. And you won't be travelling anywhere with this, not physically. Let's try this...if it did work, and I said I could do it, would you believe it? Of course not. And why would you.
Why would the CIA have a write up explaining in depth, how it works, not if it works, and not why it doesn't work?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
All it would take is one sufficiently interested and motivated person. And how would it be against "what most people believe"? Loads of people believe in other realities of one kind or another.
Besides, belief is irrelevant to science. What matters is what can be demonstrated through observation and experiment. If you can't show it... you don't know it.
If you're "not travelling physically" with that, then you're not actually travelling with that at all. It's horseshit. You've been told a load of bollocks with no actual evidence to support it, so why do you believe it?
Exactly. Nobody has done it and had it work. They can't produce evidence of travel, if they're not actually travelling anywhere. It's garbage.
Why wouldn't they? The CIA is an intelligence agency, not a scientific body. There's no reason to believe that their standards for what does and doesn't belong on their website are scientifically rigorous.
xes
F.O.A.D
Because when I first tried it, and did get some spooky results, it scared the shit out of me. (If I'm being honest)
I make you a deal, if you give me the OK to fuck entirely with your reality (not from inside real life, from outside of it), I will do my best to learn it. Give me a year or so. That'll give me an incentive, and you a giggle.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Also, since you're the one who supposedly doesn't want to believe what "the man" says - if a group of politicians really did believe that we were going to get global cooling contrary to what all the experts say, would you believe that they were right?
xes
F.O.A.D
I would have thought that a group of world leaders would have been working with the top experts.
Still can't tell me about the end of that graph though. Where the C02 level goes up but the temperature doesn't. Maybe it's the temperature that drives the C02 and not the C02 which drives the temperature?
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Still waiting.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
denier
1. a person who says that something did not happen or that a situation does not…
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
denier
1. a person who says that something did not happen or that a situation does not…dictionary.cambridge.org
[not sure whether disingenuous or just completely ignorant of context]
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
I thought you were trying to say that the word denier should only be used for holocaust deniers, which is wrong.[not sure whether disingenuous or just completely ignorant of context]
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Alright, I don't doubt you at all when you say you got spooked. It happens to all of us. But how do you know it wasn't just in your head?
I got spooked one night when I was coming down from a Ben Nevis during a family holiday. After I had run ahead of everyone else, I thought I saw an enormous bird of prey, larger than I was, landed next to the path. Despite my youth and my trepidation, this sight aroused my curiosity, and I moved closer to investigate. It turned out to be a bush, moving in the wind. The poor lighting conditions and my own tired suggestibility had combined to produce a perception of something that turned out to not be real.
Our senses don't perceive the world directly. It's all mediated within the brain. Our brains take sensory input and try to make sense of it, and since we are products of evolution, not design, it does some things that are provably wrong, even though our very eyes are telling us that it is so. That's why optical illusions persist, even when you know for a fact that's what they are.
That's why testable predictions and repeatable observations are so important. They separate the misperceptions of our jury-rigged brains, from the objective phenomena that multiple observers can agree upon.
By all means, go ahead. I doubt that there's anything you could do that would top the crazy shit that reality has thrown at me so far.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I'm a little torn on the use of the term "denier".
On the one hand, there's the appropriating of language from the Holocaust and bringing that into climate science discussions. On the other, it really does look like we are in very deep shit.
Denialism of all flavours has common features, regardless of what's being denied. Both Holocaust deniers and Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers have their shitty little conferences, during which they play-act at being historians/scientists while they network with other cranks and share tips on how to rhetorically blindside and pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting members of the public. Misrepresentation, out-of-context quotes, and in a pinch, outright lies are all acceptable tactics in advancing the goal. If they can introduce confusion into the public discourse under the guise of "debate", then so much the better. Both groups attempt to pervert and misuse language to advance their respective causes.
AGW denialists tend to be less personally odious than Holocaust deniers, but if anything they have been more damaging, because buying into AGW denialism does not require extremist beliefs about racial superiority or a Jewish conspiracy. It's an easier sell.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Are they "denialists" or "deniers" now?
All I know is if that "CIA document" (count the number of fallacies on the first page alone) is anything to go by, then calling them "sceptics" is a no-go.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I think maybe I've ended up in the Trump timeline by mistake.
Whatever timeline you're originally from must have been much worse, since you must have erased whatever memories would allow you to go back.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
What's the difference? I was using the words interchangeably. Sloppy I know, but I don't give a fuck about nitpicking over terminology right now.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
It wasn't exactly a stellar timeline but I definitely think I did something wrong with the points on the line around about 2015/16.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Whatever.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I'll just leave this here, and maybe come back to it later. Most Precise Tests of Dark Energy and Cosmic Expansion Yet Confirm the Model of a Spatially Flat Universe
Similar threads
