|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I prefer if what is called science is not taken as immutable fact.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I prefer if what is called science is not taken as immutable fact.
That's more often a problem with certain tabloid newspapers publishing early research papers as "fact", whilst leaving out the most important details. Details don't matter; only the attention-grabbing headline:
Studies show that bacon causes cancer!!!!!
(We won't mention the fact that the studies were carried out on laboratory mice, who were force-fed ten times their own bodyweight in bacon every hour for a year.)
Then they kick up a fuss demanding to know why the government isn't doing anything to address the problem they've just invented.
The government decide that they have to respond to the will of the people, and introduce guidance or laws to "protect" the public from this menace. They're all too busy worrying about their public image to do anything daft like, for example, have a scientist read the original paper to see if it makes any sense.
If anyone asks any inconvenient questions, like "why hasn't anyone been able to reproduce the results from the original paper?", the tabloids portray them as lunatics, and tell us all to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Eventually, a new scientific paper is published which shows that the original paper was flawed, and the results should probably be ignored.
The tabloids print the conclusion of the new paper as "fact", and demand to know why the stupid government introduced guidance / laws based on flawed research. Their own involvement in the matter is conveniently ignored.
And finally, some idiot writing an op-ed column for the same tabloid declares that science itself is to blame, you wouldn't have had this problem in the good old days, bring back national service and hanging and old pre-decimalisation money, back off Brussels, if only Diana was alive, there that's 250 words invoice is in the post.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That sums up the media pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, GW exists, all right.
It's just that we're not 100% sure of its causes, and no-one (especially those who shout the loudest) has a clue what the actual, measurable effects will be.
The only thing we can be certain of is that it probably won't be doing us any favours.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Of course GW exists, its from the sun. Turn that off and watch the place freeze.
What I am getting at is of course AGW. That is highly speculative, yet it hasnt stopped it forming govt policy.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
The only thing we can be certain of is that it probably won't be doing us
any favours.
This is an example of you accepting something as fact which has very little basis in science.
What is more likely is that global cooling is a far bigger risk. An ice could be triggered and I am pretty sure that having a 2 mile think ice sheet grinding your cities into dust isnt going to be doing us any favours.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: This is an example of you accepting something as fact which has very little basis in science.
Atcherley, it's an example of a piss-take. Look more closely at the wording.
BTW, 10 degrees either way would likely be catastrophic, and you're being far too unscientific in saying that colder would be worse, because there is no empirical data to confirm or deny your statement -- although it's reasonable to assume that severe disruption of the Gulf Stream (by global warming, not cooling) could well result in "having a 2 mile think ice sheet grinding your cities into dust".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Look more closely at the wording.
I did, and it still looks like a serious statement.
Mark_Wallace wrote: 10 degrees either way would likely be catastrophic
Of course, but we know that the earth can go into an ice age, it has done often, so its far more dangerous. The equivalent warming hasnt happened so is less likely to occur and so less of a danger.
Mark_Wallace wrote: although it's reasonable to assume that severe disruption of the Gulf Stream (by
global warming, not cooling) could well result in "having a 2 mile think ice
sheet grinding your cities into dust".
Again you are falling prey to immature speculative non science picked up on and hyped by the media.
There is no evidence at all that melting ice has desalinated the north atlantic and caused a gulf stream variation so it is an entirely UNreasonable assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I did, and it still looks like a serious statement
I didn't say it was a joke; I said I was taking the piss.
Quote: "The only thing we can be certain of is that it probably won't"
1. That's the kind of "Believe me Believe me!" logic-screwing bollocks that only an idiot or a schoolteacher would talk.
2. I am not an idiot, and I'm certainly not stupid enough to be a schoolteacher.
3. Therefore, I am taking the piss out of the bollocks that such people talk.
However, if I really wanted to take the piss, I could say things like:
Munchies_Matt wrote: Again you are falling prey to immature speculative non science picked up on and hyped by the media.
Saying something like that to someone like me is a genuinely embarrassing thing to do.
Do you even know what the words "However, it's reasonable to assume" and "could well result in" mean?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Why even bother taking part in a conversation if you arent being serious? And you should know that however clever you think what you write is, it is lost in CP and the internet in general.
Emabarrased? No, just bored with your usual head up arse crap.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the Lounge, Bucko.
If you can't stand the chill, get out of it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing causes or prevents anything - the whole field is due to the placebo/nocebo effect.
|
|
|
|
|
I a sure being hit by a car is going to cause something and it isnt gong to be fixed by a placebo.
|
|
|
|
|
I just read an article this morning that you should stay clear of foods that produce acidity in the blood, such as parmesian cheese, because they inflame the inside of the arteries, which helps in cholesterol build up.
|
|
|
|
|
Meat too is acid producing, veg is alkali producing. Yet nore stuff to worry about....
I just go the good old no sugar diet. Meat, fat and veg, in propper proportions, with fish making up a lof of the meat part.
And red wine of course.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I did read though that most fish are in the middle of the scale for acidity. Pick and choose, i suppose.
Moderation is a good tool.
|
|
|
|
|
I get heart burn if I eat too much meat, so its pretty easy for me to stick to fish and veg. Easy to do too, a nice sauce, bit of fish. ONe of my favourites is a kind of scallop coral bisque sauce with salmon en croute. I put butter, sea salt and lenon rind on the salmon then wrap it in the thin pastry. It freshens up the over plate and contrasts the rich bisque sauce well. Prawn bisque is too rich for this dish though.
Serve it with boiled waxy spuds, green beans, and sone spinach, and its easy Michelin style cooking!
(The bisque saucce is a complicated one to make though unless you do it often enough, but the result is sublime, truly.)
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds good, but the bisque sauce sounds unhealthy, only because most flavor, not all, comes from fat.
|
|
|
|
|
Fat is perfectly healthy, but there is little fat in it actually. It is a well browned mirepoix, flamed with brandy, then white wine, fish stock, tomato pure, taragon, scallop coral and finished with some cream, not a lot, but enough to give it gloss and body. (a bit of flour helps the body too)
If you do the prawn (or lobster/langouustine version) replace the scallop coral with the heads/shells at the mirepoix browning stage. Its very rich though, goes well with monkfish for example but a bit heavy otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected.
So when is dinner?
|
|
|
|
|
Its an exclusive restaurant, only open to a select few. 
|
|
|
|
|
Correlation does not imply causation.
Repeat...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another type of implication I'm seeing way to often is:
Blod clots consists of cholesterol, so you shouldn't eat food with cholesterol.
That's about as correct as believing that you turn green from eating vegetables.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, its utterly ridiculous, but it doesnt stop such simplistic associateions being accepted as fact.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
