NON-POLITICAL (No Trump, No Biden, no other politicians) Random Shit Thread

Random Dude said:
You wanna start this with me? Half the articles I see here are quackery. I say nothing. Just be ready to pay your carbon taxes and not question anything...
Click to expand...
If you want to post Batboy articles from The Weekly World News, yes. I'm going to make fun of it.
 
Darkenblot said:
There was a Pokemon card from the 90s that had a swastika like symbol. It caused a minor controversy in the West because no one knew that the swastika was a religious symbol for several Asian cultures.
Click to expand...

I used to work for a company with a suspicious looking logo. Unintentional, I'm sure. But I can't believe no one on high ever pointed out the similarity.

resinall-image.png
 
Well isn't this just precious...



Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is making up for his past mistakes.

The Black Adam action star over the weekend shared a video on social media documenting a recent visit to a 7-Eleven in Hawaii in which he bought out the stores supply of Snickers bars and left them for any hungry customers to take for free.

It wasn't just a generous move, but one Johnson, 50, was doing as an act of redemption.

As the Oahu native explained, 36 year earlier — when he was just 14 years old — he used to go to that very 7-Eleven daily and steal himself a King-sized Snickers on his way to the gym because he couldn't afford to buy one. "I was broke as hell," he explained in his Instagram post of his pre-workout snack, recalling that "the same clerk was there every day and always just turned her head and never busted me."
 
Darkenblot said:
There was a Pokemon card from the 90s that had a swastika like symbol. It caused a minor controversy in the West because no one knew that the swastika was a religious symbol for several Asian cultures.
Click to expand...
It's also a native American symbol.
 
Welsh Raider said:
But they say exactly why in both articles. That’s literally what the articles are about: the ‘why’.
Click to expand...
Possibly = speculation, not a fact. The fact is the models have been wrong, which means they could be wrong again.
In other words they don't know shit.
 
Desert Rat said:
Possibly = speculation, not a fact. The fact is the models have been wrong, which means they could be wrong again.
In other words they don't know shit.
Click to expand...
Really, I don’t think that’s what the articles say is it?

I know the headline of the first article says “possibly”, but I didn’t see the word anywhere in the article itself. And the scientists quoted in the article certainly don’t use it. They use the word “likely”, which is very different.

The scientists in the first article aren’t even talking about climate change. They’re describing how deep water temperatures are so much colder and the water down there been there so long - cold water weighing more than hot water (E=MCsquared and all that). It’s an interesting wee article that some lazy sub-editor has tried to jazz up. But got fuck all with proving or disproving climate change.

The other article talks about the ‘cold tongue’ of water exposed when trade winds shift the warmer waters into a turmoil and pull the colder waters to the surface. That water should be heating faster than it is, but isn’t. They’ve calculated a new model to show why that would be. Interestingly, they didn’t use “possibly” either, that I could see. And again, the article is not about global warming. Instead the scientists are asking ‘why, when greenhouse gases are present, isn’t this thin sliver of water warming, like the rest of the water is?’ And now they think they know why.

Of course, models can be wrong. But science bases those models around established and agreed facts - for example, 1. there’s a sliver of water colder than the rest; 2. There are greenhouse gases present in increased volumes that should be heating the water; 3. That sliver of water is warming, but only slowly.

And so given those facts, they posit a model to explain it.

To claim a model being disproven also destroys the associated accepted facts is just silly. And to claim that one model being broken means that all models are wrong and should be discarded is equally silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top