Anyone who argues against things that people didn't say is wasting their own time. You are one of those people.
That is true, I am wasting my time, since you don't even understand what you are saying, you think there is a consensus, but you don't know what that consensus is.
If you understood what there is consensus on, then you would be more interesting to talk to. Instead you're just ignorant to talk to.
Put another way: if you get a degree in computer science, or you are self-taught using common resources, you probably have a skill set that reflects that reflects the bare minimum that a company will accept and you have a skill set that the market is flooded with.
If you have a CS degree from a decent university, you're competing with entry-level grads who just barely took an eight-week-course in programming from some coding bootcamp.
Somehow those guys manage to find jobs, and a CS degree is already more skilled than them.
Of the scientists who have expressed an opinion on AGW 97.2% endorse the consensus. only
The consensus isn't what you think it is. That is, if you ask scientists, "should we do everything possible to stop global warming now" or "will global warming cause millions of deaths in the next century," you will not get anywhere near 97%.
Yes, retirement would be different,
You would probably work for a while, retire for a while, work some more, retire some more, try something different, and keep going until you got hit by a car.
Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/...
200mg of liver every day for dinner is not my idea of enjoyable eating. Anyway, have you tried it? Has it worked out for you?
Yeah, I got the just of it.
Glad to hear it.
And, about the drinking, if you were married to my wife; lemme tell yah...
No excuses.
Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...
1) Don't drink so much.
2) Not all of our genes are active. For example, if you exercise then certain genes activate (presumably ones that say 'big muscles?').
3) When we get old, our 'aging' genes activate.
4) These scientists found a way to 'deactivate' the aging genes.
I have no idea if that made more sense. I don't think this is the only problem with aging, though; here is a list of known problems.
As expected, the older cells had reduced cellular respiration, but the older cells did not show more DNA damage than those from children. This discovery led the team to propose that the reduced cellular function is tied to epigenetic regulation,
So it seems like the aging process of reduced cellular respiration comes from gene expression, that is, which genes are active, rather than their inability to perform.
I probably disagree with him on over half of his positions
I don't think there's any way to avoid that. You'll never get someone who agrees with you 100% unless you run yourself.
The things I look for are:
1) Competency
2) Good character
3) Won't mess up the world by starting wars
4) Won't mess up the economy with weird domestic policies (privatize social security, for example, or a $20 national minimum wage).
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
