We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Guest • 4 years ago
Gedoff Mylon • 4 years ago

Yep. This must be a plot from those gay commie scientists to make babies satanic transgender monsters.

BraveNewWhirled • 4 years ago

Darn near hit the bulls-eye there, eh Dr. Moreau?

Gedoff Mylon • 4 years ago

We really do need to amend the constitution to require passing both IQ and Basic Science Knowledge tests, before voting.

Towgunner77 • 4 years ago

Why? Do you believe that if a person allows themselves to be sodomized automatically means a higher IQ? Methinks, conflating defiling sexual acts with higher IQ is evidence of low IQ. Plus, didn't you hear, science is actually a form of micro aggression that causes triggering events. Saying, for instance, that men and women are different and referencing the science that 100% proves that as absolutely true is not politically correct.

daialanye • 4 years ago

Gedoff is another of those who hides his Disqus comments, usually a sign of trollhood.

Besides, he probably believes SCIENCE proves anthropogenic global warming.

lspanker • 4 years ago

Gedoff is another of those who hides his Disqus comments, usually a sign of trollhood.

Good call.

Jeff Good • 4 years ago

SOME people need to know what (Sarc) means and use it when they being sarcastic otherwise other people get their panties in a bind! Sarc!

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

SARC = Shift Arithmetic Right through Carry.

Luxomni • 4 years ago

I used to think that. Then I got two people(?) who followed that trail to leave disparaging comments after every comment I had left, even months old. I wish it were not necessary. I would like people to see my comments. But there are some who have to be jerks.

daialanye • 4 years ago

I regret your unfortunate experience but believe it's the wrong way to deal with tagging. Too much like skipping out of a debate. My preference would be to label Mylawn for what he is, then ignore his pathetic calls for attention.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Poor Daialanye. It doesn't realize that science never proves anything.

But his belief that it does, proves that it knows nothing about science.

Poor thing.

doug1961 • 4 years ago

Your comment proved you're an as shole.
Daialanye typed "he probably believes".

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Looks pretty well "proven" to me.

doug1961 • 4 years ago

That you're an as shole? No doubt.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Global Temperatures are now higher than at any time in the last 120,000 years.

doug1961 • 4 years ago

Wrong, you easily led moron.
And it's not worth discussing with an obvious idiot such as yourself. A simpleton who believes everything his perceived "betters" tell him.
Go away fool. Gramamaw needs you to rub her back and toes.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Doug1961 has just explained why he will always be intellectually inferior.

He thinks that science is a matter of opinion.

Poor. Doug.

Guest • 4 years ago
VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

You obviously don't need how to read a graph.

You poor retard.

daialanye • 4 years ago

Too bad you weren't around earlier to straighten out Newton and Galileo on that science thingy.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Newton's laws have of course been replaced with those of Einstein.

Tell us what things in science that Newton proved.

Similar for Einstein.

daialanye • 4 years ago

As I've stated elsewhere on this thread, there are no "laws" in science, except in casual speech. You should pay better attention.

Bad Penguin • 4 years ago

If I remember history correctly neither proved anything. They presented theories at the time.

daialanye • 4 years ago

They proved quite a few things, including heliocentrism and that white light consists of a mix of frequencies. But formal science starts with a hypothesis which is then tested. If the tests seem to confirm a hypothesis, a theory is advanced. In time the theory is often referred to as a law, but no law of science is absolute, merely awaiting a finer hypothesis and further testing.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Sorry. Newton didn't prove that the sun sits at the center of the solar system. It is entirely possible that the entire universe revolves around the earth. That isn't the simplest view, but it is possible.

Newton guessed the universal law of gravitational attraction (guessed, not proved),

G*m0*m1/R**2

Einstein showed that Newton's law of gravitation is incorrect.

Einstein's description of gravity falls apart for black holes, so we know it is also wrong.

Science provides ever improving approximations "models" of reality.

Nothing is proven.... Ever.

Proof only exists in mathematics, and there is no proof that mathematics applies to the real world.

daialanye • 4 years ago

Newton? Let's give credit to Galileeo and Copernicus for heliocentrism. Hope you never get to Mars, though—those epicycles are going to make you dizzy.

Einstein refined Newton's theory of universal gravitation. Remember, no "laws" in science, and theories are alway liable to revision.

"Proof only exists in mathematics…" say the mathematicians. Better to say, "proof" is often limited to mathematical demonstration.

Gedoff Mylon • 4 years ago

I hide my comments due to conservative trolls who follow them and chit in other discussions.

As for AGW, I am skeptical. AFAICS the actual science simply shows temperature variations. Are we contributing to GW? Probably, in a small way. But the economic cost of not doing so is IMO far too high. We should rather be concentrating on using technology to manage global warming. My preference would be solar mirrors and shades to increase or reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth. Main reasons: they can be UN-deployed if we guess wrong; they would be fairly cheap.

But please, continue to make wild assumptions about everyone who you imagine disagrees with anything your fevered little brain thinks about.

lspanker • 4 years ago

In other words, you hide them because the people you have PO'd with your tactics might just give you a dose of your own medicine.

daialanye • 4 years ago

Or perhaps we should wait for Mr Sun to change his mind, as he did around the time of the Maunder Minimum.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Looks pretty significant to me.

Fire Marshal Bill • 4 years ago

That is one fancy chart! It looks super significant. I hope for the environment's sake they didn't use Mercury thermometers back in 8000 BCE. Queue up your condescending pedantry about how I just don't understand the science. It is true what they say. Your religion shall not be questioned, clearly as it predates every other major world religion.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

If you knew science then you would know that temperatures are generally not measured with mercury thermometers these days, and haven't been for a long, time.

Science informs us that different materials have different properties at different temperatures. Scientists exploit those properties to measure temperature indirectly by changes in those properties. This has always been the case, really since mercury thermometers measure the expansion of a liquid and infer from the volume what the temperature of the liquid is.

Similarly scientists can use with width of growth rings (trees, shells), crystal forms, etc as an indirect measure of temperature.

You may not personally like the results, but then science doesn't respect your personal preferences.

Neither do I.

Fire Marshal Bill • 4 years ago

Here's the deal VD. I DO know science. Much better than you might expect. It isn't your scientific convictions and passions that give me pause. It is your unwillingness to accept opposing viewpoints and evidence. I'm sorry I was a jerk to you. I don't mean it. I wish you well and hope you have a good life. Take care.

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

If you knew science then you wouldn't be whining about there not being mercury thermometers 8,000 years ago.

You are just another denialist nutcase.

Fire Marshal Bill • 4 years ago

Wouldn't you know it, idealogues are seldom flexible. They are also apparently inept at recognizing sarcastic commentary. What does the satellite data say? How does it compare with that of the measurements taken by cats on hot tin roofs and from instruments inches away from baking asphalt in urban environments? I'm not a denialist. I fully admit that the climate changes. It has done so for roughly 4 Billion years. You're just mad that everyone won't accept your "XX% Consesus" and "The science is settled" nonsense. You haven't made your case. Your data is cooked. Your culture is corrupt. Your concerns are not shared with 91% of the United States. How's that for a consensus? I'm going to go back to my original plan of action.

daialanye • 4 years ago

VD's chart is from satellite measurements, the earlier data points from alien sources—satellites put up by the "Greys" who have, you realize, been watching over the welfare of humanity for biwyons and biwyons of years. [This info comes straight from the ghost of Carl Sagan.]

Fire Marshal Bill • 4 years ago

This gave me a good chuckle! Consider this for one moment though. VD truly believes in the science and believes he is doing what he can to protect and further humanity. For that we cannot fault him. Take care. :)

Gedoff Mylon • 4 years ago

Who said anything about sexual acts? READ AND PROCESS THE GODDAMNED ARTICLE! I swear you people are f-ing insane.

Larry Guglielmi • 4 years ago

High IQ = potty mouth?

lspanker • 4 years ago

High IQ = potty mouth?

Never mind Gedoff. I have always found that high IQs are like large penises - those who brag about them the most usually don't have them to begin with.

jj333 • 4 years ago

I've read the article as well as other information regarding this research and it's clear that science is modifying the DNA 'footprint' - the ONLY footprint we know exists - of homo sapiens. Calling this mutation of our own species 'ethical' when there is absolutely no empirical data that suggests it can be done without harm, now or in future, is beyond UNETHICAL.

mllyjul • 4 years ago

But it's not fair they can't procreate. Natural law is discriminating against them. They must be allowed to be affirmed in their preferences at any and all costs.

Keith Ciaccio • 4 years ago

I see what you are doing there..;-)

Nick • 4 years ago

Yeah... this isn't about gay people. it's about women with genetic issues having healthy children if they want to. Though, again, I don't see why they can't just adopt.

Hilly's Hunny Huma • 4 years ago

Dont kid yourself! This is ALSO about two gay people being able to have a child that shares BOTH of their DNA! Look it up for yourself, its the truth!

VendicarDecarian0 • 4 years ago

Ya... So what?

MH27610 • 4 years ago

Designer children - it's the new hipster thing to do. People today are only out for themselves - adopting is way too much hassle...

Bob_Oscar • 4 years ago

Why not designer children? Designer dogs get boring after a while. Children eventually go to the bathroom by themselves & are often just as amusing as dogs. Children are a natural replacement, so why not get the kind you like instead of *rolling the dice*.../s

coyotewise • 4 years ago

Can any say "The Wrath of Khan!"?