Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Main Doomer Fallacy

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 04:45:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')I don't get real arguments; I get a lot of moronic crap and personal attacks.

For example, if a post a news piece that is featured in a reputable, peer-reviewed science journal. That is simply news. It passed routine peer review!

You do not understand actual process of publishing in peer reviewed journals.
There is plenty of rubbish published there, regardless of all the efforts to weed these out.
I have accumulated substantial experimental evidence of such rubbish while attempting to reproduce published results from synthetic organic chemistry area.
Even most prestigious journals contain plenty of rubbish which are well known in academic and industrial circles to be non-reproductible.
Yet somehow it got published.

Mindless appeal to authority of journal will take you to nowhere.
Actual goals of research are usually entirely different than overoptimistic statements about possible repercussions in most unlikely circumstances.
However without these wild ass optimistic statements there won't be research grants available.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h right! And you would know too... wouldn't you?.. since you have more PhD's than epithelial cells. In fact, you probably crap out a few doctorates every time you sit and stink. Only idiots like Mike Ruppert are promoting doom. You belong with him. More credible people, like Richard Heinberg, talk about "managing the sustainability crisis".

If you want to make some money meantime and perhaps set yourself nicely in "doom management authorities" what entails quite comfortable future even if doom comes, you cannot simply say that nothing can be done.
That is what Heinberg is doing.

However his "managing of sustainability crisis" may simply rely on introducing Pakistani power supply policies.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Kristen » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 04:58:01

The word "Technology". Is a bit ambiguous. Technically the idea of using hand made tools in hunting by our anscestors could be a technological achievement. Sure a lot of techno radical creations have been disapointments and not surfaced, but surely there are a few examples of success.

On a different note I think the fascination with doom is rampant on this forum. I imagine some of these doomers are disgusted with the culture and media and unfairness of this country. Any idealist would be. The idea of a fate like peak oil occuring is romantic in a way. The evil, greedy empire getting what it deserves is a great story. Seeing some justice in an unjust world could set many of the suffering free.

I am no physchologist, but I just thought I'd add a few thoughts. I'm not trying to defame anyone for their beliefs, just trying to create a bridge between two opposing viewpoints, sort of like Switzerland

Long days and pleasant nights.

Kristen
User avatar
Kristen
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon 17 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby vtsnowedin » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 05:00:07

8) Technology is a wonderful thing but it cannot be used to repeal the laws of physics. Sure we have machines that fly but they did not turn off gravity to do it instead they burn fossil fuel to overcome gravity. No matter how far technology advances it will not reduce the machines fuel requirement to zero.
Now we face the problem of world overpopulation at the same time as we pass peak oil. Technology will undoubtedly help us out in dealing with this two edged sword but the question is can new technologies be developed fast enough to deal with the problem as fast as it will develop? Seven billion people in 2011 and nine billion by 2040 are projected. Some say that this is already over the long term carrying capacity of the planet and we will soon strip the planet bare then suffer a population crash.Evidenced by the crashing world ocean fish stocks. Others dispute this and count on technology to bail us out but if that technology has to be applied with scarce $200/barrel oil can the problems be solved before the old standbys of war and famine step up to the plate?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Carlhole » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 05:30:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'Y')ou do not understand actual process of publishing in peer reviewed journals.
There is plenty of rubbish published there...


Nope. It's not up to me or to you to decide whether a reputable science journal article describes legitimate science. It's up to the peer-review committee at the journal. If there is something wrong with the paper, other scientists in that field will point out errors. That is the whole point of having a science journal in the first place. This is the Scientific Method - researchers provide results/conclusions to the scientific community at large so that others can repeat the experiment. Duh!

Even at an ordinary science magazine, articles are worth re-posting here if they are relevant. The editors have concluded that the science involved is worth including in their magazine.

It's OK to say, "I don't believe that". But YOU go on and on for pages and pages charging that I am posting "rubbish" because I am a "troll" and all that miserable horse manure. This is what the doomers do on this board. They disrupt any discussion that doesn't suit them. They don't want to hear anything at all that conflicts with their vision of doom. And they don't want anyone else to hear it either.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 08:37:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'Y')ou do not understand actual process of publishing in peer reviewed journals.
There is plenty of rubbish published there...

Nope. It's not up to me or to you to decide whether a reputable science journal article describes legitimate science.
It's up to the peer-review committee at the journal. If there is something wrong with the paper, other scientists in that field will point out errors.

In any case I can criticize anything what touches chemistry because it is my formal area of expertise as per my university education and industrial experience and also I have myself published few papers in reputable chemical journals.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is the whole point of having a science journal in the first place. This is the Scientific Method - researchers provide results/conclusions to the scientific community at large so that others can repeat the experiment.

However if they are failing to convince nonscientific public about validity of their results then their funds may well be scrapped.

Public and its elected representatives is a putative sovereign who decides which scientific subjects are worth funding and which are not.
And if scientists cannot communicate validity of their research to non-experts but nevertheless peoples with some basic training in science, then in all probabilities their results are not worth to bother with.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut YOU go on and on for pages and pages charging that I am posting "rubbish"

Base on my knowledge in area of personal expertise (chemistry) you are posting plenty of rubbish, academic and industrial PR scams and company press releases.

You are even not able to address my criticism in any fashion other than by mindless mumbling that it was published and peer reviewed.
Hence I am accusing you that you are parroting something what you don't understand, often a nonsense.

If you are not capable to understand given subject then you are not in position to defend it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey disrupt any discussion that doesn't suit them. They don't want to hear anything at all that conflicts with their vision of doom. And they don't want anyone else to hear it either.

Actually it is *you*, who disrupts discussion on this board.
You are posting about some pie-on-the-sky projects because these were published somewhere and then go on to ad hominem arguments with anyone who is exposing these projects as such.

If you want to argue with scientists then go on some formal scientific discussion boards, disclose your name and credentials and enjoy discussion.

However if you are posting here you must accept that even most brilliant ideas will be shot down, exposed as unworkable nonsense etc.
Heck, if you made an effort to discuss with researchers involved in solar sequestration of CO2 concerns about origins of electricity necessary top perform this task they would reluctantly admit that substantial PV setups unachievable with current abilities of industrial output are needed to execute their scheme.

These peoples are not stupid, however they have to make plenty of wild ass statements, just to secure funding.
They are often not happy with these statements themselves, but that is how business works.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Pretorian » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 11:45:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')"Knowledge is doom". You know, there is just so much wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin.


You can begin with naming a technology that didnt cause mass-murders of people, animals or plants. I'm all ears.
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby ralfy » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 12:09:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'E')veryone can see how virtually every Science/Technology thread gets trashed on PeakOil.com. The doom crowd mostly cries, "PO Doom is inevitable; get that unrealistic crap (Science & Technology) off our computer screens; it's dangerous and misleading"!

But Science & Technology is the primary way that human society deals with problems and crises. Therefore, it is interesting to watch the scientific response to our energy/GW problems. And we are indeed seeing a growing stream of stories related to various energy/climate innovations and studies. This is a process where some discoveries will prove extremely useful and beneficial, while others will fall by the wayside. This is all normal and natural.

Doomers, however, want human beings to act in ways that are totally contrary to their nature. It's just ridiculous to expect humanity to NOT use Sci/Tech - because this of way solving problems is the MAIN feature of people. Doomers, in effect, are demanding that people NOT BE people. That's nonsense.

The only way that people will ever act like doomers want them to act is if peak oil becomes an indisputable reality NOW - and this reality totally overwhelms any inventive, innovative or adaptive ways of dealing with it. But this hasn't happened at all; it isn't happening. At this point, the certainty of PO apocalypse is merely a belief. Few people are worried about any apocalypse outside of sites like this one. There are many, many ideas and options for powering our global civilization. And they are being explored in earnest now. In the meantime, Oil & Gas isn't going away anytime soon.

You can never accurately predict the future. The world is simply too chaotic a place. Anything can happen. We are definitely NOT at the End of All Knowledge (another ridiculous assumption that doomers would have you believe). So while you cannot accurately predict PO doom; you also cannot accurately predict something like The Technological Singularity. You can only look at current trends. And one of the most interesting, accelerating trends to watch is Sci/Tech.

I'd like to be able to post threads along Sci/Tech lines without having every single one of them attacked. Human Beings are what they are. They will do what they have evolved to do. There's no point in attacking human Sci/Tech. It's bound to happen.


One of those technologies was oil! If global oil production has been flat since 2005, then whatever science and technology we have to solve that problem better be employed right now.

The fact that one "can never accurately predict the future" works against your argument because it works both ways: it can get better or it can get worse.

Finally, your last paragraph is contradicted by your previous one: if the world is simply too chaotic and we can't predict the future, then it's possible that technological fixes are NOT bound to happen.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby diemos » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 12:21:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')Hence I am accusing you that you are parroting something what you don't understand, often a nonsense.


Scientists are usual quite careful about what they put into scientific papers. However, the general public and the press will often run wild with inferences and conclusions that aren't actually in the paper.

We had a great example recently with a paper that reported that pancreatic cancer cells can metabolize fructose. What was the headline in the paper?

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP CAUSES CANCER!!!!!

A leap that had nothing to do with what was in the paper.

I'm quite familiar with the NIF project and I'm very confident that they will achieve their goals to reach ignition. But I know enough to know that they define ignition as more fusion energy produced than laser energy input. That's nice, but if you want to create a power plant you need to get more electricity out than electricity in to run the plant. Given that the best research lasers have an efficiency of converting electricity to laser light of 10% and a good power plant can convert heat to electricity with an efficiency of 30% you need to get to 30:1 fusion output to laser input just to build a power plant with eroie of 1. Much less one that actually produces a useful excess of energy.

Thus NIF is an important milestone but not the end of the story.

My dear friend carhole, I fear that you read in the paper that NIF is about to achieve ignition and decide that "ignition" means what you want it to mean instead of digging into the actual papers to see what they are actually saying.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 13:28:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', '
')I'm quite familiar with the NIF project and I'm very confident that they will achieve their goals to reach ignition. But I know enough to know that they define ignition as more fusion energy produced than laser energy input. That's nice, but if you want to create a power plant you need to get more electricity out than electricity in to run the plant. Given that the best research lasers have an efficiency of converting electricity to laser light of 10% and a good power plant can convert heat to electricity with an efficiency of 30% you need to get to 30:1 fusion output to laser input just to build a power plant with eroie of 1. Much less one that actually produces a useful excess of energy.

I have never taken part in large NIF like projects, however it is quite obvious for me that achieving parity between input and output of energy is a very far cry from a viable fusion reactor.

Even it they produced enough energy to make such project self powering (and it is substantially more than they are now trying to achieve), it would still be a very far cry from commercial fusion.

After all whats the point to spend $ billions assemble giant laser installations, just to deliver 20-50 MW of electricity output?

Personally I suspect that this is what we might get at the end as long as fusion power is concerned:

Working proof of concept but hopelessly expensive to allow for large scale commercial applications.

In respect of scientists making overoptimistic claims:

At one point I was taking a part in joined research project where my employer from pharma, UK government and prestigious UK academic institution was involved.

There was an explicit pressure on researchers involved (including myself) to make some well sounding, far reaching statements while presenting progress of work, or otherwise some grants might be withhold.
So such a statements were made on number of conferences but we were perfectly aware that these optimistic claims are not entirely impossible to achieve but realistically we knew that delivering of only small fraction of trumpeted total would still become to be quite an achievement.
Eventually that was the course of events, all researchers involved were happy, I got a good bonus myself and funding government body was also satisfied with results produced.
Overoptimistic part was quietly forgotten (as it was known from the beginning that odds of "grand success" are marginally slim).
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Carlhole » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 16:23:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', 'M')y dear friend carhole, I fear that you read in the paper that NIF is about to achieve ignition and decide that "ignition" means what you want it to mean instead of digging into the actual papers to see what they are actually saying.


You're not a "dear friend of mine". I don't know who the fark you are. But fear not.

NIF

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')gnition experiments designed to accomplish NIF's goal will begin in 2010, and successful demonstration of ignition and net energy gain on NIF will be a transforming event that is likely to focus the world's attention on the possibility of ICF as a potential long-term energy option.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The Promise of Hybrid Nuclear Power
Success on NIF will serve as a springboard for LIFE, a hybrid technology that combines the best aspects of nuclear fusion, a clean, inherently safe and virtually unlimited energy source (see Inertial Fusion Energy), with fission, a carbon-free, reliable energy technology that currently provides about 16 percent of the world's electricity. Through the combination of fusion and fission, LIFE power plants could generate gigawatts of power 24 hours a day for as long as 50 years without refueling while avoiding carbon dioxide emissions, easing nuclear proliferation concerns and mitigating the concerns associated with nuclear safety and long-term nuclear waste disposal.

Existing and future inventories of spent nuclear fuel, natural and depleted uranium and weapons-grade plutonium could produce enough energy to meet the world's energy needs for hundreds to thousands of years. Besides offering energy independence and security, LIFE power plants could provide the United States with an enormous economic competitiveness edge in the energy sector in the coming decade.


The LIFE hybrid fission-fusion reactor is next up on the drawing boards after basic ignition research is accomplished, according to Dr. Moses, NIF Director. With a LIFE reactor, you don't have to solve all the enormous technical challenges of pure fusion reactor. But that research would obviously still continue.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Carlhole » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 16:46:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I')n any case I can criticize anything what touches chemistry because it is my formal area of expertise as per my university education and industrial experience...

Look, moron, you have bitched and moaned and called me a "troll" for posting an article in a peer-reviewed journal! Since when do educated people engage in that sort of childish nonsense? [/quote]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '.').. and also I have myself published few papers in reputable chemical journals.

By all means, post your credentials and work if you want anyone to take you more seriously. No? You won't? Well, then STFU and quit pretending you are anything but an anonymous poster on a public discussion board!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')hat is the whole point of having a science journal in the first place. This is the Scientific Method - researchers provide results/conclusions to the scientific community at large so that others can repeat the experiment.

However if they are failing to convince nonscientific public about validity of their results then their funds may well be scrapped.
What a ridiculous comment! You know, EU, you are not articulate. You are not logical. You don't know the procedures of science. You throw up a needless barrage of childish objections on every single science thread I post. It's completely obvious to everyone that you simply have an axe to grind.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut YOU go on and on for pages and pages charging that I am posting "rubbish"Base on my knowledge in area of personal expertise (chemistry) you are posting plenty of rubbish, academic and industrial PR scams and company press releases.
No, moron. I post articles from science magazines and reputable scientific journals. And I make comments about them or ask questions about them. That's what a discussion board like this one is for!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'Y')ou are even not able to address my criticism in any fashion other than by mindless mumbling that it was published and peer reviewed. Hence I am accusing you that you are parroting something what you don't understand, often a nonsense.
By now, anyone reading this should be able to see what sort of s*** EU is made of.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')hey disrupt any discussion that doesn't suit them. They don't want to hear anything at all that conflicts with their vision of doom. And they don't want anyone else to hear it either. Actually it is *you*, who disrupts discussion on this board. You are posting about some pie-on-the-sky projects because these were published somewhere and then go on to ad hominem arguments with anyone who is exposing these projects as such.
There you have it, folks. This is what doomers do on this board. I post a peer-reviewed article and make comments and then I have to put up with this childish moronic crap from the doom crowd.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Carlhole » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 18:08:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ornhole. Shut up why don't ya'



This is what the doomers all about folks. Brain-dead moronic crap every time.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Xenophobe » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 19:36:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '
')
You can begin with naming a technology that didnt cause mass-murders of people, animals or plants. I'm all ears.


Humans decide to invent, say, spears. Spears can be good, they can protect paleo-people from lions and tigers and bears. They can also be used to wipe out a species, say, the mastodon. The spear doesn't have an intent beyond what people give it.

You sound like you are trying to angle towards a philosophical angle of "people be bad". Did I read your intent with this comment correctly?
User avatar
Xenophobe
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri 06 Aug 2010, 21:13:08
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Xenophobe » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 19:53:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ornhole. Shut up why don't ya'



This is what the doomers all about folks. Brain-dead moronic crap every time.


Do you have an opinion as to the "why"? Your initial post seems to document the particulars of it happening, but not much in the way of "why".

Peakers are not stupid people, you keep referring to them as "morons" and I don't think that is accurate. Plenty of them seem quite intelligent, the information available to them through your efforts seems reasonably clear to me, and therefore must be to them as well. They simply do not assign weight to your concept of its future value.

Fear of the unknown is a common human characteristic, perhaps Peakers are just people who feel that fear stronger than others? And adjust the value of the information you present accordingly?

Future technologies, any of them, are irrelevant because until it arrives at their doorstep via FedEx, ready to power their home and car for $5/month, it isn't of value in their worldview?

Its easy for someone to look at, say, Bloom Energy, and see how it might fit into a future energy mix. Future. Or we can talk about how natural gas from shales might do the same...in the future. Or nukes, or anything else, including efficiencies or conservation. But because its a forward looking idea, it just has no value in their estimate of what will happen in the future? Doesn't mean they are stupid. Colin Campbell isn't stupid. Obviously the quality of average poster around here isn't like Colin Campbell, but still, they aren't stupid.
User avatar
Xenophobe
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri 06 Aug 2010, 21:13:08
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ludi » Tue 10 Aug 2010, 20:01:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xenophobe', ' ')They can also be used to wipe out a species, say, the mastodon.



Debatable.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... odons.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/200 ... n-poop.ars
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby diemos » Wed 11 Aug 2010, 00:03:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')The LIFE hybrid fission-fusion reactor is next up on the drawing boards after basic ignition research is accomplished, according to Dr. Moses, NIF Director.


Indeed. I think it's a great project and I thoroughly support it.

You seem to get most of your science from press releases. You should be aware that press releases aren't written to the standards of peer reviewed papers. Here's an actual paper on the LIFE design. http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/HybridsPubli/LIFE_TOFE/Meier.pdf

From Table I you can see that I underestimated the required gain. They assume 39.1 with an additional factor of 4 from multiplication in the fission envelope. That get's them up to an EROEI of 5. 200MW in for 1000MW out.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Xenophobe » Wed 11 Aug 2010, 00:57:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xenophobe', ' ')They can also be used to wipe out a species, say, the mastodon.



Debatable.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... odons.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/200 ... n-poop.ars


I didn't mean it in as much a factual sense as just an example of a technology and a bad use of it, bad in the connotation of maybe wiping out a species.
User avatar
Xenophobe
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri 06 Aug 2010, 21:13:08
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Carlhole » Wed 11 Aug 2010, 01:57:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')The LIFE hybrid fission-fusion reactor is next up on the drawing boards after basic ignition research is accomplished, according to Dr. Moses, NIF Director.


Indeed. I think it's a great project and I thoroughly support it.

You seem to get most of your science from press releases. You should be aware that press releases aren't written to the standards of peer reviewed papers. Here's an actual paper on the LIFE design. http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/HybridsPubli/LIFE_TOFE/Meier.pdf

From Table I you can see that I underestimated the required gain. They assume 39.1 with an additional factor of 4 from multiplication in the fission envelope. That get's them up to an EROEI of 5. 200MW in for 1000MW out.


Oh come on. No one knows yet. The experiments need to be performed at NIF first, data collected, analyzed and a LIFE design settled on. I understand that there is already a LIFE reactor in preliminary design but they are waiting for the series of laser fusion tests to complete before finalizing the design and going forward with a prototype. At least, that's what Dr. Moses says.

One of the strangest things that keeps happening here on PeakOil.com are claims by anonymous posters that they know better than leading scientists in a given field. It's weird, I think, that people pretend to know things that they really don't in order to bolster their online anonymous status or something. Why would someone with valuable, specialized scientific knowledge be posting here on this board full of mostly Luddite ignoramuses?
Carlhole
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron