DanG

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DanG

  1. DanG
    For someone who claims to be interested in the science, you seem to have distain for how science works. Those "explanations" are called hypotheses. The scientist creates a hypothesis, then either conducts experiments to gather data to prove or disprove the hypothesis, or, in the case of something like climate, looks for raw data in the natural environment to do the same thing. A hypothesis is not an "explanation" that is presented as fact. It is simply a starting point to look for the explanation of the underlying physical process. I don't see anything here that proclaims, "we found the heat!" I see hypotheses that try to determine where the heat has gone. - Dan G
  2. DanG
    The cherry picking part was not including these two sentences from the opening paragraph: - Dan G
  3. DanG
    In your own mind and the denier websites you frequent, yes. But that was a given, so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be impressed. - Dan G
  4. DanG
    Um, yeah. We know you've never believed in climate change. So what? - Dan G
  5. DanG
    I guess that's the rub. It looks like you're in good company, since smoking is slowly being outlawed everywhere. Note: I don't smoke and never have, besides an occasional cigar. - Dan G
  6. DanG
    That's your statement about computer models, not any scientists'. Anyone who works with computer models will tell you that computer models can't "verify" anything. They can model a system and make predictions about how that system will behave given different boundary conditions. Models are verified by data, models to not verify anything themselves. - Dan G
  7. DanG
    Well, I disagree with that. I would vote against such an ordinance. - Dan G
  8. DanG
    You're missing my point. I think people should have the right to sign up to work in a marginally unsafe environment, so long as the employer is upfront about the risks and safety measures. - Dan G
  9. DanG
    I don't think that's a very good analogy. A better analogy would be if a worker hired onto an asbestos mine (with safety precautions in place), then later complained that asbestos is too dangerous to work around. Your line of thinking would result in the closure of all dropzones. TM: "You want me jump out of a plane?!? That's unsafe!" DZO: "But that's what you got hired to do." TM: "But my right to a safe and healthy workplace trumps all." - Dan G
  10. DanG
    You didn't post anything in that thread except a couple of clickys and your quote about how you know how the movie ends. If you going with, "I told you so," you have to first say something. - Dan G
  11. DanG
    Yes, including bars and restaurants, assuming that the bar was a smoking bar when the employee was hired. - Dan G
  12. DanG
    Obviously. Yourself and your tribe included. - Dan G
  13. DanG
    Which regulation caused CVS to stop selling tobacco? (For the record, I think smoking should be allowed on private property with the owner's permission.) - Dan G
  14. DanG
    That's a cop out, and you know it. I understand the outrage over Benghazi. What I can't understand is the acceptance as truth of every anti-Obama/Clinton "fact" or opinion, while not allowing a rational discourse on what really happened, and how to prevent it in the future. If your community really cared, they'd be more interested in a real fact finding effort, not a witch hunt. - Dan G
  15. DanG
    What was the thread title? I'm not searching though four years of your posts. - Dan G
  16. DanG
    Saying, "I know how the movie ends," is not the same as saying, "here's how the movie ends..." In fact, I know who will win the next five Kentucky Derbies. I'll bring this post back up in five years. - Dan G
  17. DanG
    Let's see the post. - Dan G
  18. DanG
    In your mind the people against it must geel that way because they fear losing political power. Is it possible they just don't want to move? - Dan G
  19. DanG
    The last one quoted. - Dan G
  20. DanG
    You had me right up to that last sentence. - Dan G
  21. DanG
    No shit, Sherlock. If you read the treaty as you claim, it would be exceedingly obvious why it talks about those things. The damn treaty is about controlling arms sales from states to terrorists, and disarming insurgents after a conflict. Your right wing nutjob websites are leading you around by the nose. - Dan G
  22. DanG
    Seriously, dude, you just quoted the text that says what you want it to: emphasis added because you're killing us all. - Dan G
  23. DanG
    Yeah, right. - Dan G
  24. DanG
    Already explained. The gun lobby is quite powerful. - Dan G
  25. DanG
    You say that as if Challenger blew up on the first SRS mission. The point of the Challenger accident is that the program managers ignored the operating limitations of the vehicle, and the pointed warnings of cognizant engineers. Exactly, and there already was previous knowledge about the o-rings' temperature sensitivity. The Challenger blew up because certain people chose not to apply existing knowledge and reduce the odds of a specific, known failure mode. - Dan G