The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: rangerrebew on December 09, 2018, 05:24:39 pm
-
Fifth Coldest October/November On Record In The US
Posted on December 9, 2018 by tonyheller
October/November afternoon temperatures in the US have been declining since the 19th century. There was a very sharp drop off in the late 1960’s, and temperatures never recovered. This October/November was fifth coldest on record.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/fifth-coldest-october-november-on-record-in-the-us/
-
@Dexter, you'd better get your woolies out. This global warming is getting cold!
-
@Dexter, you'd better get your woolies out. This global warming is getting cold!
I don't get my news from real climate science dot com and maybe you shouldn't either. Either way it doesn't matter. My position on this matter has been made clear.
-
Don't y'all find it weird that even Fox News elects not to post articles like this? Every single thing I get pinged to is from some completely bogus looking site.
Not bullshitting you.com
Real science no jokes.com
definitely not fake junk science.com
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Don't y'all find it weird that even Fox News elects not to post articles like this? Every single thing I get pinged to is from some completely bogus looking site.
Not bullshitting you.com
Real science no jokes.com
definitely not fake junk science.com
*****rollingeyes*****
But, Dexter, it's not the site, it's the data that they are using. Surely you're not suggesting that actual scientists would fake data to make a point?
-
But, Dexter, it's not the site, it's the data that they are using. Surely you're not suggesting that actual scientists would fake data to make a point?
I'm suggesting that it's weird that only bogus click bait websites host the kind of articles you keep pinging me to. I'll even take Breitbart. If this was anything other than a non-story more reputable websites would be talking about it.
-
I'm suggesting that it's weird that only bogus click bait websites host the kind of articles you keep pinging me to. I'll even take Breitbart. If this was anything other than a non-story more reputable websites would be talking about it.
Again, check the source of the data, Dexter, before you cast stones.
-
Don't y'all find it weird that even Fox News elects not to post articles like this? Every single thing I get pinged to is from some completely bogus looking site.
Not bullshitting you.com
Real science no jokes.com
definitely not fake junk science.com
*****rollingeyes*****
How do you know it's bogus looking? You've already admitted to not understanding it.
-
How do you know it's bogus looking? You've already admitted to not understanding it.
If you feel safe getting your information from real climate science dot com, well, yeah. I suggest reconsidering that.
-
Again, check the source of the data, Dexter, before you cast stones.
I'll read about it when Fox reports on it. If they don't report on it I'll have to assume they didn't think it was worth reporting on.
-
If you feel safe getting your information from real climate science dot com, well, yeah. I suggest reconsidering that.
Why should I consider your suggestion when you've already told us you are a know-nothing on this subject?
-
Why should I consider your suggestion when you've already told us you are a know-nothing on this subject?
I'm pretty good at being able to tell the difference between nonsense partisan click bait and reputable websites that actually do good reporting.
-
I'm pretty good at being able to tell the difference between nonsense partisan click bait and reputable websites that actually do good reporting.
:thud:
-
:thud:
I am even okay with reputable right wing sources like Fox. Why is Fox not reporting on this if it's not a non-story? This is a click bait website. You should be very careful about absorbing information from websites like this if understanding reality is actually important to you.
-
I don't get my news from real climate science dot com and maybe you shouldn't either. Either way it doesn't matter. My position on this matter has been made clear.
So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?
-
I'm pretty good at being able to tell the difference between nonsense partisan click bait and reputable websites that actually do good reporting.
Actually, no, you’re not.
-
So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?
I don't know about Rutgers, but you sure you want to go there re: NOAA?
-
Fifth Coldest October/November On Record In The US
Posted on December 9, 2018 by tonyheller
October/November afternoon temperatures in the US have been declining since the 19th century. There was a very sharp drop off in the late 1960’s, and temperatures never recovered. This October/November was fifth coldest on record.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/fifth-coldest-october-november-on-record-in-the-us/
Likely all the nukes they blew up in the 60s and 70s, dust eventually settled but it took awhile.
-
So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?
Not when they're being cited by a partisan click bait website like the one that made that article. This is a non-story, otherwise websites that have a smidgen of journalistic integrity would be reporting as well.
-
Actually, no, you’re not.
Do you honestly trust websites like that?
-
Global Warming is causing Global Cooling!
Look, these guys made a bet (because they have no idea) on 'warming'.
Nobody really knows. Now they are just trying to cover their ass.
If it is hot, They are right. If it is cold, They are right. If you take a crap tonight, They are right.
No matter what the hell happens, They are right!
-
you sure you want to go there re: NOAA?
Haha
I was going to leave that one alone. Anybody want to guess what NOAA's position on AGW is?
-
Not when they're being cited by a partisan click bait website like the one that made that article. This is a non-story, otherwise websites that have a smidgen of journalistic integrity would be reporting as well.
You're trying desperately, shifting and dancing to deflect to this 'click bait' website and not focus on the data itself. That's data by credible sources, or what you would deem credible, that you are now dismissing.
You are intellectually inconsistent at this point.
-
You're trying desperately, shifting and dancing to deflect to this 'click bait' website and not focus on the data itself. That's data by credible sources, or what you would deem credible, that you are now dismissing.
You are intellectually inconsistent at this point.
Do you know what position Rutgers and NOAA take on AGW?
-
Do you know what position Rutgers and NOAA take on AGW?
So now the data has to be 'interpreted' in order to actually be acceptable data, and can only be understood through some scientific oracle?
You're starting to sound like the medieval Catholic church.
-
So now the data has to be 'interpreted' in order to actually be acceptable data, and can only be understood through some scientific oracle?
You're starting to sound like the medieval Catholic church.
Answer your own question. Are Rutgers and NOAA qualified sources or not?
-
Answer your own question. Are Rutgers and NOAA qualified sources or not?
By standard definition, Rutgers and the NOAA are university and govt sources, and therefore valid according to your definition.
Or do you think they are not?
-
By standard definition, Rutgers and the NOAA are university and govt sources, and therefore valid according to your definition.
Or do you think they are not?
I think they're valid, and when they agree with what the climate scientists are saying I think that's valid too. NOAA and Rutgers are strongly in agreement with what the scientists are saying about AGW. You are being duped.
-
I don't get my news from real climate science dot com and maybe you shouldn't either. Either way it doesn't matter. My position on this matter has been made clear.
This is the classic technique of the followers of the AGW cult: rather than refute the argument, theory, data at hand, they impugn the source.
That said, climate is not the same as local weather, so drawing conclusions about climate trends from the weather this November is no more valid than skewing data to try and bolster your shake climate theory.
-
This is the classic technique of the followers of the AGW cult: rather than refute the argument, theory, data at hand, they impugn the source.
That said, climate is not the same as local weather, so drawing conclusions about climate trends from the weather this November is no more valid than skewing data to try and bolster your shake climate theory.
The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 22222frying pan
-
Just paid my [natural] gas bill yesterday.
Going back through my records (to 1995), it was the highest I've ever had for that billing period...
-
Do you honestly trust websites like that?
Don't listen to him, he's just mad at you for saying he was only slightly less leftist than you are.
-
The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 22222frying pan
Irrelevant. The fact that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement says it all.
-
The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 22222frying pan
The data is the data; the "fixing" and interpretation of the data is what is in question.
-
The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 22222frying pan
So basically you're saying despite the data, they're going to believe in AGW anyway.
-
So basically you're saying despite the data, they're going to believe in AGW anyway.
No, I'm saying unlike you and the people that write the articles on those click bait websites they actually understand how to interpret the data they collect.
-
Irrelevant.
Taking data from scientists and purporting that you can interpret it better than they can is absurd.
-
No, I'm saying unlike you and the people that write the articles on those click bait websites they actually understand how to interpret the data they collect.
Why does data need 'interpreted?' It's data. It speaks for itself, or it should.
Most people call that science.
-
No, I'm saying unlike you and the people that write the articles on those click bait websites they actually understand how to interpret the data they collect.
Now, you do realize that the writers on these what you call click-bait sites are also reputable scientists?
-
Why does data need 'interpreted?' It's data. It speaks for itself, or it should.
Most people call that science.
It's fitting data into a statistical analysis, and anyone that has taken a statistics class knows that statistics can (and will) be used to support anything.
-
It's fitting data into a statistical analysis, and anyone that has taken a statistics class knows that statistics can (and will) be used to support anything.
That's why it's called manipulating the data. :laugh:
-
Now, you do realize that the writers on these what you call click-bait sites are also reputable scientists?
About the man that wrote the "click bait" article, that doesn't understand how to science...
I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.
-
About the man that wrote the "click bait" article, that doesn't understand how to science...
Obviously an idiot.
-
Obviously an idiot.
Oh good, he can join my "take over the world" club!
-
Obviously an idiot.
Obviously not an idiot, which is why he's able to fool other non-idiots such as yourself.
-
Obviously not an idiot, which is why he's able to fool other non-idiots such as yourself.
FFS
-
Why does data need 'interpreted?' It's data. It speaks for itself, or it should.
Most people call that science.
What you lack is context and depth of knowledge, because you're not a climate scientist.
-
What you lack is context and depth of knowledge, because you're not a climate scientist.
But, there's no way you could know that since you're not a climate scientist either.
-
But, there's no way you could know that since you're not a climate scientist either.
I know a lot more about science than you think. That knowledge is why I take the position that I do. Believing you don't lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist is outrageous. Do you believe the same about your physician? Hell, I don't even believe that about my mechanic, let alone scientists that are experts in fields I am not an expert in.
-
I know a lot more about science than you think. That knowledge is why I take the position that I do. Believing you don't lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist is outrageous. Do you believe the same about your physician? Hell, I don't even believe that about my mechanic, let alone scientists that are experts in fields I am not an expert in.
What field are you an expert in?
-
What field are you an expert in?
You wouldn't believe me and it doesn't matter anyway because it's not relevant to climate science, and that is the point. Being smart and knowledgeable in your own field does not make you an expert in fields you are not trained in.
-
You wouldn't believe me and it doesn't matter anyway because it's not relevant to climate science, and that is the point. Being smart and knowledgeable in your own field does not make you an expert in fields you are not trained in.
(https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/media/images/Anna/jake_.gif)
-
You wouldn't believe me and it doesn't matter anyway because it's not relevant to climate science, and that is the point. Being smart and knowledgeable in your own field does not make you an expert in fields you are not trained in.
Oh, but it does matter, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to tell us that you know more about science than we think you do, and it would give us some insight into why you take the position you do.
-
Oh, but it does matter, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to tell us that you know more about science than we think you do, and it would give us some insight into why you take the position you do.
I got a master's degree in cyber security after doing 4 years in the military in a communications MOS. I get paid to break through security systems so they can be made better. Nothing I do is directly related to climate science. I know quite a lot about computer science.
-
I got a master's degree in cyber security after doing 4 years in the military in a communications MOS. I get paid to break through security systems so they can be made better. Nothing I do is directly related to climate science. I know quite a lot about computer science.
I had a coworker at Lockheed that was cyber security in the Air Force Reserve. I lost touch with him when they activated him. My son just recently changed fields from programming to cyber security.
-
If a climate scientist tried to tell me how to do my job I would laugh in their face. I'd expect the same treatment if I told them how to do their job.
-
People get all upset when I say ; weather.
https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c
-
I call BS on this. My son pointed out that after Army beat Navy last year, the team made snow angels on the field. They didn’t make snow angels this year because there was no snow. The obvious answer is globull warming.
-
If a climate scientist tried to tell me how to do my job I would laugh in their face. I'd expect the same treatment if I told them how to do their job.
Yeah... but then there is the hacker - an autodidact, with no fancy paper, that walks right through your work. Science has its place, but...
-
the hacker - a didactic, with no fancy paper, that walks right through your work.
Thank you for displaying the depth of your ignorance when it comes to my profession. I feel it is relevant.
-
Sorry... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH2KGboA35c#)
-
Thank you for displaying the depth of your ignorance when it comes to my profession. I feel it is relevant.
Oh, I am not ignorant of your profession.
-
Sorry... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH2KGboA35c#)
Sigh....Bing.
-
Science is built upon previous knowledge, new information, data, logic and math.
The validity of theories, depend on the quality of both data and logic.
Just having a bunch of crappy data, does not overcome faulty logic.
The finding that Leif Eriksson "discovered" North America came during my lifetime.
Cracking the Enigma code during my parents'
The Wright Brothers' flights during my grandparents'
I truly expect during the next couple of generations, climate science may develop different, from the current "consensus."
-
I got a master's degree in cyber security after doing 4 years in the military in a communications MOS. I get paid to break through security systems so they can be made better. Nothing I do is directly related to climate science. I know quite a lot about computer science.
See, now that wasn't so hard, was it? Thank you for your service.
I think there are two things going on with "climate science" that you are confusing or not making clear. One is whether there is an upward, downward or no trend in temperatures. This is not a difficult math problem, just tedious. The other is if there is an upward or downward trend, *why* is it happening. This may be the part that you are discussing in depth climate science knowledge and experience to understand.
-
See, now that wasn't so hard, was it? Thank you for your service.
I think there are two things going on with "climate science" that you are confusing or not making clear. One is whether there is an upward, downward or no trend in temperatures. This is not a difficult math problem, just tedious. The other is if there is an upward or downward trend, *why* is it happening. This may be the part that you are discussing in depth climate science knowledge and experience to understand.
I simply do not believe that so many climate scientists all over the world would sell out to their governments to the extent that they would outright lie about their findings. These are not evil people.
-
I simply do not believe that so many climate scientists all over the world would sell out to their governments to the extent that they would outright lie about their findings. These are not evil people.
Perhaps some combination of evil, greedy, easily swayed by peer pressure, scared.
-
Perhaps some combination of evil, greedy, easily swayed by peer pressure, scared.
To keep a conspiracy like that under cover you would have to have a pretty smooth operation going. Is this the same government that you think can't do anything right?
-
So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?
Isn't Rutgers like 1-11 this season.
-
To keep a conspiracy like that under cover you would have to have a pretty smooth operation going. Is this the same government that you think can't do anything right?
They haven't done a good job of hiding their lies. Do you remember there were articles on it years ago when the IPCC was caught "fixing" data? There was an email trail of it. But they've got the liberal media to help them along the way and keep information that they don't want getting out from getting much attention.
-
The finding that Leif Eriksson "discovered" North America came during my lifetime.
That's a good example. The knowledge was always there, and in fact, Leif Eriksson didn't 'discover' America either... There are artifacts in central America with Sumerian writing on them, for Pete's sake. Egyptian, Celtic, and more. America has been discovered and rediscovered over and over again, and the argument can be made that some, especially in the north, and especially to the northwest, that some folks always knew it was there.
'Knowledge' is often self limiting, because it can't think out of its own preconceived box.
-
I simply do not believe that so many climate scientists all over the world would sell out to their governments to the extent that they would outright lie about their findings. These are not evil people.
Why? The Piltdown man was a known fake, but it remained in the science books for decades. There is known faulty and fabricated nonsense in the books today too, being taught as knowledge.
-
They haven't done a good job of hiding their lies. Do you remember there were articles on it years ago when the IPCC was caught "fixing" data? There was an email trail of it. But they've got the liberal media to help them along the way and keep information that they don't want getting out from getting much attention.
You think they have been fixing the data ever since then? We would be finding out about it constantly. There is no way in hell a bunch of scientists would go along with that bullshit. These skeptics you point to have not proven the climate scientists wrong. They have different opinions. I don't care what Al Gore says. To be completely honest I didn't even watch his documentary. Anybody can say any stupid ass shit. You need to take the climate scientists seriously. A lot of very smart and knowledgeable people really want us to listen to what they are saying about their area of expertise. I do not think it's a conspiracy.
-
You think they have been fixing the data ever since then? We would be finding out about it constantly. There is no way in hell a bunch of scientists would go along with that bullshit. These skeptics you point to have not proven the climate scientists wrong. They have different opinions. I don't care what Al Gore says. To be completely honest I didn't even watch his documentary. Anybody can say any stupid ass shit. You need to take the climate scientists seriously. A lot of very smart and knowledgeable people really want us to listen to what they are saying about their area of expertise. I do not think it's a conspiracy.
My lying eyes... So I guess you won't believe what the thermometer says outside your house until a "scientist" tells what it really is after they adjust the data... Funny how virtually the "adjustments" to the actual measurements are upwards... Very rarely downwards... And that's in spite of many of the weather stations they use data from suffering from the urban heat island affect as time goes on... 50+ Years ago many were located in isolated areas with dirt/nature around them and slowly towns/cities were built around many of them with concrete and pavement heating things up locally. Providing biased data towards warming.
-
You think they have been fixing the data ever since then? We would be finding out about it constantly. There is no way in hell a bunch of scientists would go along with that bullshit. These skeptics you point to have not proven the climate scientists wrong. They have different opinions. I don't care what Al Gore says. To be completely honest I didn't even watch his documentary. Anybody can say any stupid ass shit. You need to take the climate scientists seriously. A lot of very smart and knowledgeable people really want us to listen to what they are saying about their area of expertise. I do not think it's a conspiracy.
They were fixing the data up until thrn, why would a few news articles that only a handful of inconsequential people remember stop them? There's a pretty common sense approach to tell whether they are telling the truth. Ask yourself, has their story changed? Is what they are claiming is happening ever changed? Have any of their prediction come to fruition?
-
They were fixing the data up until thrn, why would a few news articles that only a handful of inconsequential people remember stop them? There's a pretty common sense approach to tell whether they are telling the truth. Ask yourself, has their story changed? Is what they are claiming is happening ever changed? Have any of their prediction come to fruition?
I think it's possible that scientists fudged some numbers in an attempt to get people to believe what they believe. I could see a scientist making an end justifies the means decision like that. I don't think it would continue unopposed though. I also don't think they secretly believe the opposite of what they are telling you.
I've been thinking about it and maybe there's something to what religious types say about science being a religion too. Scientists understand how much bigger than them science really is. No one person will ever understand all of it, or even most of it. The best they can do is try to be aware of how much they don't understand. I have faith in climate scientists.
-
I think it's possible that scientists fudged some numbers in an attempt to get people to believe what they believe. I could see a scientist making an end justifies the means decision like that. I don't think it would continue unopposed though. I also don't think they secretly believe the opposite of what they are telling you.
I've been thinking about it and maybe there's something to what religious types say about science being a religion too. Scientists understand how much bigger than them science really is. No one person will ever understand all of it, or even most of it. The best they can do is try to be aware of how much they don't understand. I have faith in climate scientists.
If what they were telling us is correct they wouldn't need to fudge the numbers. There is no place in science for data fixing and once that was discovered the whole subject should have been laughed into extinction until they coukd prove without a doubt the information they were presenting was above reproach. But things have been allowed to continue; someone(s) has an agenda and it's not scientific integrity.
If your client discovered you were screwing with data to make things look worse than they are to get them to believe what you wanted them to you would be fired, and perhaps sued.
-
If what they were telling us is correct they wouldn't need to fudge the numbers. There is no place in science for data fixing and once that was discovered the whole subject should have been laughed into extinction until they coukd prove without a doubt the information they were presenting was above reproach. But things have been allowed to continue; someone(s) has an agenda and it's not scientific integrity.
Sometimes it's not easy to explain why you think you're right to people that lack years of education and experience.
-
Sometimes it's not easy to explain why you think you're right to people that lack years of education and experience.
Easy is beside the point. It does not prove an excuse to embellish data to explain to them.
-
Easy is beside the point.
I think it's relevant, but...
It does not prove an excuse to embellish data to explain to them.
You are correct.
-
Sometimes it's not easy to explain why you think you're right to people that lack years of education and experience.
Oh, good. At least you understand the difficulty we are having in getting through to you.
-
They were fixing the data up until thrn, why would a few news articles that only a handful of inconsequential people remember stop them? There's a pretty common sense approach to tell whether they are telling the truth. Ask yourself, has their story changed? Is what they are claiming is happening ever changed? Have any of their prediction come to fruition?
Is the outcome always that we need to give them a lot more money ASAP?
-
Sometimes it's not easy to explain why you think you're right to people that lack years of education and experience.
Well that's a load of manure right there. They have to lie to the people because their truth isn't really true. If what they believed was true, they wouldn't have to lie or make things up. There are always people that believe they know what is best and that others are just to ignorant to understand. In the thirties and forties there was this short little guy in Germany, since the sixties it's the liberals/democrats here in America with things like 'Silent Spring' and The China Syndrome, and who can forget 'It Takes a Village'idiot
-
I got a master's degree in cyber security after doing 4 years in the military in a communications MOS. I get paid to break through security systems so they can be made better. Nothing I do is directly related to climate science. I know quite a lot about computer science.
And you think you do this better on weed?
-
And you think you do this better on weed?
It helps me focus.
-
Global Warming is causing Global Cooling!
Look, these guys made a bet (because they have no idea) on 'warming'.
Nobody really knows. Now they are just trying to cover their ass.
If it is hot, They are right. If it is cold, They are right. If you take a crap tonight, They are right.
No matter what the hell happens, They are right!
I like to say weather. That really gets the "climate change" people going!
Good post! :thumbsup:
-
It helps me focus.
It helps you pretend you are focusing.
https://mashable.com/article/does-weed-help-you-focus/#_RxN.3uJXPqI (https://mashable.com/article/does-weed-help-you-focus/#_RxN.3uJXPqI)
...While stoners may roll their eyes at the stereotyping, science, it seems, is on the police department's side. Weed impairs our ability to think, organize, and pay attention, studies have shown. And it's not usually associated with productivity and motivation.
Yet, some users feel more focused, even productive, after consuming or smoking weed — even though there's no scientific evidence cannabis acts upon the motivational circuits in our brains....'
...The notion that cannabis can promote productivity or focus on any task, however mundane, is "unlikely," Andrei Derbenev, an associate professor of physiology at Tulane University's School of Medicine, said over email. This has been studied, and consistently shows the opposite effect.
"Actually, most of the research on cannabis and motivation shows no effect, or if anything, reduced motivation," John Salamone, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Connecticut, said over email. The same goes for attention and focus, he noted....
Cannabis use and cognitive dysfunction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/)
...The general impression supported by many studies is that cannabis causes cognitive decline, particularly with long-term usage. Majority of studies have suggested a significant cognitive decline in cannabis abusers compared to non-abusers and healthy controls.[8–10] A report by Bartholomew et al.[11] suggested that cannabis use has a detrimental effect on prospective memory ability in young adults but users may not be aware of these deficits. Cannabis is known to produce substantial acute effects on human cognition and visuomotor skills. Many recent studies additionally revealed rather long-lasting effects on basic oculomotor control, especially after chronic use.[12] Even so, it is still unknown to what extent these deficits play a role in everyday tasks that strongly rely on an efficient saccade system, such as reading.
Cannabis has a negative impact on cognition; however, the current body of research literature does not provide evidence of significant, long-term effects due to cannabis use. Several acute effects are noted and some are suggestive of negative mental health consequences.[13] Evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that the severity of the effects of cannabis use on cognitive development is dependent on the age when cannabis use begins.[14] One possible explanation is that those who begin cannabis use early in adolescence are more likely to become heavily dependent....
-
It helps you pretend you are focusing.
https://mashable.com/article/does-weed-help-you-focus/#_RxN.3uJXPqI (https://mashable.com/article/does-weed-help-you-focus/#_RxN.3uJXPqI)
Cannabis use and cognitive dysfunction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/)
To be fair, he didn't say what it helped him focus on. I'm guessing it's getting righteous snack foods from the Hoggly Woggly.
-
It helps you pretend you are focusing.
No.
The fact is the relationship between ADHD and marijuana use is probably just too varied and personalized to find clearly definable groups who use and who don’t use. At least anecdotally, many patients with ADHD mention its positive impact on focus as part of the draw in using it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-distracted-couple/201502/adhd-and-weed-what-s-the-draw (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-distracted-couple/201502/adhd-and-weed-what-s-the-draw)
It also helps with creative thinking. A lot of people with ADHD prefer treatment with marijuana. Stimulants are very hard on your body.
-
No.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-distracted-couple/201502/adhd-and-weed-what-s-the-draw (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-distracted-couple/201502/adhd-and-weed-what-s-the-draw)
It also helps with creative thinking. A lot of people with ADHD prefer treatment with marijuana. Stimulants are very hard on your body.
There is no bleep way you can eschew the science that Thackney provided for you on this and still claim tbat it's because of the science that you believe the global warming alrmists.
-
There is no bleep way you can eschew the science that Thackney provided for you on this and still claim tbat it's because of the science that you believe the global warming alrmists.
A single professor saying that he thinks it's unlikely that weed can help people focus is not exactly convincing when my experience with it suggests otherwise. It's also very common for people with ADHD to report that it helps them focus. That professor wasn't speaking of people with ADHD, just people that use in general. Weed has helped me with focus and anxiety for 4 or 5 years now. I'm not some junkie. I use it because it helps me.
-
There is no bleep way you can eschew the science that Thackney provided for you on this and still claim tbat it's because of the science that you believe the global warming alrmists.
Do you have an English degree? If not then you are too stupid to understand the words you are reading. You should just take the word of people who have an education in words and sentences.
-
A single professor saying that he thinks it's unlikely that weed can help people focus is not exactly convincing when my experience with it suggests otherwise. It's also very common for people with ADHD to report that it helps with focus. That professor wasn't speaking of people with ADHD, just people that use in general. It's not even close to the same. Weed has helped me with focus and anxiety for 4 or 5 years now. I'm not some junkie. I use it because it helps me.
Yeah. That is the same line of bullshit all my deadbeat burnout tenants tell me when they explain why bong water spilled on the carpet.
-
A single professor saying that he thinks it's unlikely that weed can help people focus is not exactly convincing when my experience with it suggests otherwise. It's also very common for people with ADHD to report that it helps with focus. That professor wasn't speaking of people with ADHD, just people that use in general. It's not even close to the same. Weed has helped me with focus and anxiety for 4 or 5 years now. I'm not some junkie. I use it because it helps me.
That's what all the junkies say.
-
That's what all the junkies say.
Are people also junkies for using drugs that are prescribed to them?
-
Do you have an English degree? If not then you are too stupid to understand the words you are reading. You should just take the word of people who have an education in words and sentences.
I thought I was averaging out the use of 'eschew' by using bleep right in front of it. But, I do confuse cashew and eschew sometimes, oh and also with that guy that drew the pictures with the bleep up stairs, so I could be wrong on this.
-
Are people also junkies for using drugs that are prescribed to them?
If it's oxy, and they're crushing it up to snort, then yeah, tbey are.
-
Are people also junkies for using drugs that are prescribed to them?
Hell yeah. Doctors are creating junkies because they are lazy....
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/04/doctors-stop-opioid-crisis-quit-overprescribing-marty-makary-column/504860001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/04/doctors-stop-opioid-crisis-quit-overprescribing-marty-makary-column/504860001/)
-
If it's oxy, and they're crushing it up to snort, then yeah, tbey are.
Smoking pot is not equivalent to snorting opioids. I smoke about half a gram every day. Where I live that's about 5 dollars worth of weed. A lot of people benefit from drugs in various ways.
-
Smoking pot is not equivalent to snorting opioids. I smoke about half a gram every day. Where I live that's about 5 dollars worth of weed. A lot of people benefit from drugs in various ways.
We benefit every day from you doing drugs, so that part is true at least.
-
Yeah. That is the same line of bullshit all my deadbeat burnout tenants tell me when they explain why bong water spilled on the carpet.
Anybody that doesn't change their bong water after every use is gross.
-
Is there anyway to get this train wreck back on track? Maybe split off Dexies dope tangents into it's own dope smoke fog thread.
-
Smoking pot is not equivalent to snorting opioids. I smoke about half a gram every day. Where I live that's about 5 dollars worth of weed. A lot of people benefit from drugs.
Are you a Doctor? If not then you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. You should let people with education tell you what to think on the topic and stop embarrassing yourself....
What about medical marijuana?
As controversial as it is, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved medications containing synthetic THC drugs dronabinol and nabilone, both man-made forms of cannabis. These are used as appetite stimulants in AIDS patients and for chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.
At this time, treating medical conditions using marijuana is still illegal on a federal level. There is still insufficient data from large, long-term, well-designed studies on the potential risks versus benefits of using marijuana to relieve symptoms of certain medical conditions.
There are however, ongoing studies on cannabidiol, a component of marijuana that does not have the mind-altering effects of THC. That may hold potential promise in helping conditions like drug-resistant epilepsy and some psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, substance use disorders, schizophrenia and psychosis.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pot-is-dangerous-not-funny-a-doctor-tells-us-why (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pot-is-dangerous-not-funny-a-doctor-tells-us-why)
-
A single professor saying that he thinks it's unlikely that weed can help people focus is not exactly convincing when my experience with it suggests otherwise. It's also very common for people with ADHD to report that it helps them focus. That professor wasn't speaking of people with ADHD, just people that use in general. Weed has helped me with focus and anxiety for 4 or 5 years now. I'm not some junkie. I use it because it helps me.
Maybe you are having trouble focusing on the reading material provided.
Majority of studies have suggested a significant cognitive decline in cannabis abusers compared to non-abusers and healthy controls.[8–10] A report by Bartholomew et al.[11] suggested that cannabis use has a detrimental effect on prospective memory ability in young adults but users may not be aware of these deficits. Cannabis is known to produce substantial acute effects on human cognition and visuomotor skills. Many recent studies additionally revealed rather long-lasting effects on basic oculomotor control, especially after chronic use.
-
Are you a Doctor? If not then you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. You should let people with education tell you what to think on the topic and stop embarrassing yourself....
What about medical marijuana?
As controversial as it is, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved medications containing synthetic THC drugs dronabinol and nabilone, both man-made forms of cannabis. These are used as appetite stimulants in AIDS patients and for chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.
At this time, treating medical conditions using marijuana is still illegal on a federal level. There is still insufficient data from large, long-term, well-designed studies on the potential risks versus benefits of using marijuana to relieve symptoms of certain medical conditions.
There are however, ongoing studies on cannabidiol, a component of marijuana that does not have the mind-altering effects of THC. That may hold potential promise in helping conditions like drug-resistant epilepsy and some psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, substance use disorders, schizophrenia and psychosis.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pot-is-dangerous-not-funny-a-doctor-tells-us-why (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pot-is-dangerous-not-funny-a-doctor-tells-us-why)
There is still insufficient data from large, long-term, well-designed studies on the potential risks versus benefits of using marijuana to relieve symptoms of certain medical conditions.
The doctors are saying their data is inconclusive. My anecdotal experience says weed helps me in various ways.
-
Smoking pot is not equivalent to snorting opioids. I smoke about half a gram every day. Where I live that's about 5 dollars worth of weed. A lot of people benefit from drugs in various ways.
5 bucks a half gram? I guess the price has escalated a bit since my pot smoking days. I was paying around $80 a pound. At $5 a half gram rate that would be over $4,500 a pound.
Good thing I quit.
-
Maybe you are having trouble focusing on the reading material provided.
Lots of drugs can be detrimental, especially with heavy use. That doesn't mean they can't also be beneficial in the right context. Your link also didn't speak of users with ADHD.
-
Is there anyway to get this train wreck back on track? Maybe split off Dexies dope tangents into it's own dope smoke fog thread.
They started it.
-
The doctors are saying their data is inconclusive. My anecdotal experience says weed helps me in various ways.
As you have told anyone that would listen on Global Warming threads, you are not smart enough to make those conclusions on your own. You have no relevant degrees in the topic and making comments on things you have no education in makes you look even dumber than you already are. Quit while you are ahead.
-
As you have told anyone that would listen on Global Warming threads, you are not smart enough to make those conclusions on your own. You have no relevant degrees in the topic and making comments on things you have no education in makes you look even dumber than you already are. Quit while you are ahead.
That's not what I said at all Frank, and I think your comparison is ridiculous.
-
Lots of drugs can be detrimental, especially with heavy use. That doesn't mean they can't also be beneficial in the right context. Your link also didn't speak of users with ADHD.
You're an adult now and still believe that ADHD diagnosis? You know that just became a catch-all for doctor's who were afraid to tell parents of the millenial generation that their parenting skills sucked and were turning their kids into little a-holes, right?
-
You're an adult now and still believe that ADHD diagnosis? You know that just became a catch-all for doctor's who were afraid to tell parents of the millenial generation that their parenting skills sucked and were turning their kids into little a-holes, right?
ADHD is a real condition despite the fact that some people are misdiagnosed with it. This is getting ridiculous. I am a contributing member of society that smokes a small amount of weed most days. What I've got going on works for me.
-
I've done LSD a few times too, and plan to use it again at some point. It has given me a lot of useful perspective. Drugs need to be respected, but they're not always bad.
-
ADHD is a real condition despite the fact that some people are misdiagnosed with it. This is getting ridiculous. I am a contributing member of society that smokes a small amount of weed most days. What I've got going on works for me.
Oh, I never said it wasn't a real condition. If what you're doing works for you then I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it.
-
Is there anyway to get this train wreck back on track? Maybe split off Dexies dope tangents into it's own dope smoke fog thread.
blij26
-
If what you're doing works for you then I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it.
I'm defensive about it because people are suggesting that there's something wrong with the way I'm living my life and I disagree.
-
Oh, I never said it wasn't a real condition. If what you're doing works for you then I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it.
Because he has been outed as someone without the formal education to discuss such matters.
-
Is there anyway to get this train wreck back on track? Maybe split off Dexies dope tangents into it's own dope smoke fog thread.
Hey! We are still on topic! CO and CO2 from weed smoke are factors in "global warming" doncha know!! ***cool cat*** wink777
-
I get paid to break through security systems so they can be made better.
Professional Hacker huh? Remind me not to look at any links you post. :cool:
-
I simply do not believe that so many climate scientists all over the world would sell out to their governments to the extent that they would outright lie about their findings. These are not evil people.
I think you fail to realize that AGW is a modern version of the age old tale of The Emperors New Clothes.
-
It helps me focus.
????????
Quit trying to bs everyone. Some of us, back in the '70's tried this shit, and I can tell you first hand that "focusing" is about the least descriptive aspect of this brain numbing activity.
-
????????
Quit trying to bs everyone. Some of us, back in the '70's tried this shit, and I can tell you first hand that "focusing" is about the least descriptive aspect of this brain numbing activity.
It can (could) "focus" a person on simple rote tasks by removing the ability to focus on more than one thing at once. I, uh, knew a guy that used to consistently score higher at pinball and certain video games when high. My theory was the dope removed all of the surrounding distractions. Complex tasks are (were) a different story.
Pot might improve pinball scores, but I'd rather my surgeon be sober.
I once interviewed a cop for a speech I had to give in college. He said one thing they see with impaired drivers is they will often do ONE thing right. For example, they'll be swerving back and forth while maintaining a completely consistent speed.
-
I'm defensive about it because people are suggesting that there's something wrong with the way I'm living my life and I disagree.
Many people that initially use drugs and or alcohol, feel themselves in control, and not at risk of losing that control.
But the risk does exist, and the addictive, mind altering substances, are patient, clever, seductive.
They prey on highly intelligent people. Often such people are too damn smart, for their own good.
-
Well this thread finally got interesting.
-
Since this has already been hijacked, what’s the thought on CBD oil? I’m reading that it’s beneficial for radiation treatment.
-
Since this has already been hijacked, what’s the thought on CBD oil? I’m reading that it’s beneficial for radiation treatment.
https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20180507/cbd-oil-all-the-rage-but-is-it-safe-effective#1 (https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20180507/cbd-oil-all-the-rage-but-is-it-safe-effective#1)
If you're going to experiment I recommend getting some THC gummy bears.
-
Since this has already been hijacked, what’s the thought on CBD oil? I’m reading that it’s beneficial for radiation treatment.
A friend swore cbd oil completely relieved her severe spinal/neck pain and recommended it to me for my similar physical issues. It did absolutely nada. :shrug: There will be testimonials on both sides, yea and nay.