THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR

[Rotobeast]

(11-25-2016, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: He might try bashing Sweden on twitter. Stupid unfunny Sweden won't give me dopey nobel price. Not nice. Boycott IKEA.

An "give me the damn Nobel price or else..." approach might actually do the trick.

I could TOTALLY see that happening.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-23-2016, 06:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Why can't we just put the divisions and name calling behind us all live together under Republican policies?

Ummmm....because HuffPo/Politico/VOX won't let you?

And if you have to ask what false equivalencies were rejected by voters....then you're as out-of-touch as the people who tell you who to vote for.

[Dill]

(11-27-2016, 03:30 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ummmm....because HuffPo/Politico/VOX won't let you?

And if you have to ask what false equivalencies were rejected by voters....then you're as out-of-touch as the people who tell you who to vote for.

The people who tell me who to vote for generally don't make cryptic, unsupported claims and then refuse to explain what they mean.

Groupthink sounds so odd outside the group. That's why you get the questions.

[Dill]

(11-25-2016, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: He might try bashing Sweden on twitter. Stupid unfunny Sweden won't give me dopey nobel price. Not nice. Boycott IKEA.

An "give me the damn Nobel price or else..." approach might actually do the trick.

LOl Sweden is a "second-rate" country whose economy has been ravaged by socialism, and I hate to tell you but their women are overrated too. So I doubt he would bother unless THEY said something. THEN we might get a tweet storm of international proportions

[JustWinBaby]

(11-27-2016, 02:51 PM)Dill Wrote: The people who tell me who to vote for generally don't make cryptic, unsupported claims and then refuse to explain what they mean.

Of course not.  They just tell you to vote for the person with a "D" next to their name.  Simple and clear - so naturally you're more trusting of them.

[Dill]

(12-04-2016, 03:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Of course not.  They just tell you to vote for the person with a "D" next to their name.  Simple and clear - so naturally you're more trusting of them.

LOL says the guy who doesn't trust the "liberal press," thinks climate change is a hoax, and Obama is a "demagogue."

You expect me to believe you get that right wing high without a little help from your friends?  

[JustWinBaby]

(12-04-2016, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL says the guy who doesn't trust the "liberal press," thinks climate change is a hoax, and Obama is a "demagogue."

You expect me to believe you get that right wing high without a little help from your friends?  

I get that from actual studies I've read.  I don't trust the press in general as I've seen alarming politicization of media, economics and science over the past 20 years that eschew intellectual rigor and good science.  Obama is absolutely a demagogue to anyone who isn't a nuthugger - it's basically his contribution to transforming the office.

You expect me to believe you've actually read and understood real research?  I've read your posts, and you can't fool me.  I've heard there's something called a useful idiot, and I know that's not me so I often wonder who that means.

I will bet my house you can't tell and explain the difference between climate change fact and "theory".  Just because I reject the liberal agenda, or story, doesn't mean I'm a bible thumping conservative. You can't claim you aren't owned by the bubble, and then give me pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism like little Hitlers spreading the propaganda.

[hollodero]

(12-10-2016, 05:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I get that from actual studies I've read.  I don't trust the press in general as I've seen alarming politicization of media, economics and science over the past 20 years that eschew intellectual rigor and good science.  Obama is absolutely a demagogue to anyone who isn't a nuthugger - it's basically his contribution to transforming the office.

You expect me to believe you've actually read and understood real research?  I've read your posts, and you can't fool me.  I've heard there's something called a useful idiot, and I know that's not me so I often wonder who that means.  

I will bet my house you can't tell and explain the difference between climate change fact and "theory".  Just because I reject the liberal agenda, or story, doesn't mean I'm a bible thumping conservative.  You can't claim you aren't owned by the bubble, and then give me pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism like little Hitlers spreading the propaganda.

...Jesus Christ, dude...  

[Rotobeast]

(12-10-2016, 09:13 AM)hollodero Wrote: ...Jesus Christ, dude...  

Are you suggesting he use Jesus in his example, instead of Hitler ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 05:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I get that from actual studies I've read.  I don't trust the press in general as I've seen alarming politicization of media, economics and science over the past 20 years that eschew intellectual rigor and good science.  Obama is absolutely a demagogue to anyone who isn't a nuthugger - it's basically his contribution to transforming the office.

You expect me to believe you've actually read and understood real research?  I've read your posts, and you can't fool me.  I've heard there's something called a useful idiot, and I know that's not me so I often wonder who that means.  

I will bet my house you can't tell and explain the difference between climate change fact and "theory".  Just because I reject the liberal agenda, or story, doesn't mean I'm a bible thumping conservative.  You can't claim you aren't owned by the bubble, and then give me pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism like little Hitlers spreading the propaganda.

"Intellectual rigor and good science" profferred as base values, followed by a stream of ad hominem and bald assertions baldly--or should I say "absolutely"--re-asserted. Not a good start at all, if you are trying to establish that it's the other guy who relies on "pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism." I am not sure what "conscious intellectualism" would be, but I do know the role of public intellectual normally eschews the kind of incontinent rage expressed above.

 I am pretty sure that "real research" advances by  demonstration, not one person claiming he has "read" something and others just haven't. I don't expect you or any other poster in this forum to "believe" anything without demonstration, which you'd know if you read my posts carefully.  

You appear to use the terms "fact" and "theory" more in a non-scientific, journalistic sense, facts being bits of information or data conventionally held true, and theory being a word for what's left over as speculation or unsettled opinion. Hard to tell, therefore, what criteria would have to be satisfied before you deemed any explanation valid. In any case, I don't claim to be a climate scientist. But I do claim that laypersons should, nevertheless, strive to inform themselves about climate change--including its politics, which at this point appears to be more decisive for public policy than actual climate research. 

[JustWinBaby]

(12-10-2016, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I am pretty sure that "real research"

Or, in other words, you have no idea.  You're "pretty sure" about research, and not speaking from education or experience or self-independent knowledge.  You're "pretty sure" based on what you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs.

Useful idiots don't understand confidence intervals, or R-squared, or sample size, or H0.....I can go on and on and on, but I know I'm already well over your head. But tell me more about my "non-scientific" use of the words "fact" and "theory".

I welcome a debate of the science. But I know you are absolutely not capable of that.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-10-2016, 09:13 AM)hollodero Wrote: ...Jesus Christ, dude...  

Yeah....climate change is the crucifix the left carries.  No disagreement here.

I don't disagree it sounds bat-shit crazy.  But these days, mehhh

[hollodero]

(12-11-2016, 05:33 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or, in other words, you have no idea.  You're "pretty sure" about research, and not speaking from education or experience or self-independent knowledge.  You're "pretty sure" based on what you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs.

Useful idiots don't understand confidence intervals, or R-squared, or sample size, or H0.....I can go on and on and on, but I know I'm already well over your head.  But tell me more about my "non-scientific" use of the words "fact" and "theory".

I welcome a debate of the science.  But I know you are absolutely not capable of that.

Why don't you give it a try instead of simply insulting people.

Link to two or three serious studies that refute climate change. But please, serious, so we can all educate ourselves. Nothing wacky like "Climate change can't be real because it would be a perpetuum mobile" or stupid stuff like that. 
Please go ahead.

[Dill]

(12-11-2016, 05:33 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or, in other words, you have no idea.  You're "pretty sure" about research, and not speaking from education or experience or self-independent knowledge.  You're "pretty sure" based on what you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs.

Useful idiots don't understand confidence intervals, or R-squared, or sample size, or H0.....I can go on and on and on, but I know I'm already well over your head.  But tell me more about my "non-scientific" use of the words "fact" and "theory".

I welcome a debate of the science.  But I know you are absolutely not capable of that.

I'm pretty sure that "pretty sure" doesn't mean either that "I have no idea" or that I am not speaking from education or experience. (Not sure what "self-independent knowledge" is--a garbled attempt to say "independently gained knowledge"?)  I am pretty sure that experienced researchers respect cautious expression more than they do high praise for oneself combined with abusive language towards others.

But speaking from education AND experience, I say self praise and abusive language are not what researchers in any scientific or scholarly field regard as demonstration. How is it I must explain this to someone who knows I am "absolutely incapable" of science debate?     

And now there is an implicit claim that you don't base your arguments on "whatever you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs."  In addition, you apparently took a course in statistics and that positions you to explain why thousands of climate scientists have gotten it wrong for decades (do they know what a "confidence inteval" is?). But this claim to special knowledge also relieves of you any obligation to communicate it to me (us? are others still following this thread?).

That is what's so puzzling--the strong desire to pose superior knowledge, but wholly unaccompanied by any desire to demonstrate it. It is apparently a superior knowledge that finds joy only in invective, not in intellectual dialogue and pursuit of further knowledge. 

Are you sure that, for you, this is really about science and science policy?

PS I can't tell much about your use of terms like "fact" and "theory."  These are not simple terms; they have differing shades of meaning and application in differing sectors of research. When scientists speak to the laymen, they have to simplify and continually explain their specific usages to  avoid confusion. So when someone "bets" that I cannot explain the difference between climate change "fact and theory," it sounds as odd as a reference to "conscious intellectualism." I have to guess what is really meant by someone who doesn't know how to use the terms.  Until more information comes in, I have to imagine am dealing with someone who imagines conflict over scientific interpretations is something like a high school debate in which one side trumps another with something called "facts."  I could be wrong. But I won't just take your word for that.  

[Dill]

(12-11-2016, 11:59 AM)hollodero Wrote: Why don't you give it a try instead of simply insulting people.

Link to two or three serious studies that refute climate change. But please, serious, so we can all educate ourselves. Nothing wacky like "Climate change can't be real because it would be a perpetuum mobile" or stupid stuff like that. 
Please go ahead.

I would also be very curious to see what "studies" he is talking about. He has weighed in on climate change discussions in previous years, but then, as now, only to 1) affirm Climate Denial , 2) claim global warmers could never understand his explanation of why the intentional community of climate scientists was wrong., and 3) disappear.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-15-2016, 03:10 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm pretty sure that "pretty sure" doesn't mean either that "I have no idea" or that I am not speaking from education or experience. (Not sure what "self-independent knowledge" is--a garbled attempt to say "independently gained knowledge"?)  I am pretty sure that experienced researchers respect cautious expression more than they do high praise for oneself combined with abuse language towards others.

But speaking from education AND experience, I say self praise and abusive language are not what researchers in any scientific or scholarly field regard as demonstration. How is it I must I explain this to someone who knows I am "absolutely incapable" of science debate?     

And now there is an implicit claim that you don't base your arguments on "whatever you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs."  In addition, you apparently took a course in statistics and that positions you to explain why thousands of climate scientists have gotten it wrong for decades (do they know what a "confidence inteval" is?). But this claim to special knowledge also relieves of you any obligation to communicate it to me (us? are others still following this thread?).

That is what's so puzzling--the strong desire to pose superior knowledge, but wholly unaccompanied by any desire to demonstrate it. It is apparently a superior knowledge that finds joy only in invective, not in intellectual dialogue and pursuit of further knowledge. 

Are you sure that, for you, this is really about science and science policy?

PS I can't tell much about your use of terms like "fact" and "theory."  These are not simple terms; they have differing shades of meaning and application in differing sectors of research. When scientists speak to the laymen, they have to simplify and continually explain their specific usages to  avoid confusion. So when someone "bets" that I cannot explain the difference between climate change "fact and theory," it sounds as odd as a reference to "conscious intellectualism." I have to guess what is really meant by someone who doesn't know how to use the terms.  Until more information comes in, I have to imagine am dealing with someone who imagines conflict over scientific interpretations is something like a high school debate in which one side trumps another with something called "facts."  I could be wrong. But I won't just take your word for that.  

Based upon his change of tone from one day to the next, I suspect (pretty sure) much of the "self-independent" knowledge was fueled by alcohol, e.g. mean drunk. Nor did he deny it. 

[JustWinBaby]

(12-11-2016, 11:59 AM)hollodero Wrote: Why don't you give it a try instead of simply insulting people.

Link to two or three serious studies that refute climate change. But please, serious, so we can all educate ourselves. Nothing wacky like "Climate change can't be real because it would be a perpetuum mobile" or stupid stuff like that. 
Please go ahead.

You know the old saying you can't prove a negative?  Why don't you link me studies that you think prove climate change, and I will critique them. 

And, hopefully, you understand what you're linking and not just copy-pasta or why even engage you?

By the way, don't even waste our time with anything less than 95% R-sq (and if you don't understand why, google it)....because I will summarily reject that study with that very one sentence. And to make it simple: Less than 95% R-sq = nothing (and most likley garbage) and less, or no R-sq at all = something even less.

So, now, please...regale me with studies that support your view. I will wait.

[JustWinBaby]

Or we can break it down even simpler and you tell me:

The % of CO2 in the atmosphere and how fast it is increasing

How much of the annual CO2 emissions man constitutes

What is the CO2 log warming equation

And a general teaser on your thoughts on negative forcing and amplification effects....with a qualifying nod to sunspots and solar maximums

[Dill]

(12-18-2016, 06:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You know the old saying you can't prove a negative?  Why don't you link me studies that you think prove climate change, and I will critique them. 

And, hopefully, you understand what you're linking and not just copy-pasta or why even engage you?

I do know that old saying.  It refers to the status of type of logical claim, in which someone affirms something true because it cannot be proven false. Absence of evidence is perversely advanced as "proof."

But it does not apply to arguments which advance claims based upon observation, experiments, and data sets and pretend to science. 
The replication of studies plays an important role in advancing scientific theories. Such replication is an aspect of the principle of falsifiability,
which distinguishes experimental science from other kinds of studies. A study which cannot, in principle, be falsified, is not scientific. And this principle applies to
climate denial studies as well as those affirming anthropogenic global warming, whenever they claim to be "science."

I apologize in advance for the "copy-pasta":

"Learning from mistakes in climate research" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

In fact, climate denial studies are refuted rather frequently.

My hypothesis is that many are not really meant to be "science," but to circulate on Corporate funded websites, the WSJ, Forbes, and Fox News. There they perform a political function by clouding the climate change debate and otherwise serving he extraction lobby.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-18-2016, 06:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You know the old saying you can't prove a negative? 

(12-10-2016, 05:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I get that from actual studies I've read.  

Why don't you just post the actual studies you have read?