Current Affairs Culture wars & The rise of grifting

[Wizard]

Zero, I dialed it back a while ago, this and the Ukraine thread fiasco are thoroughly depressing. Tryin to have a laugh, lifes painful and serious enough. Not feeling to great at the moment, found out just after 8pm that someone I know has been found having hanged himself. RIP Chris. I thoroughly hate what you've done, but I can't imagine how bad things were to get you to that point mate. :'(

Very sorry to hear that mate. Hope you are all holding up ok

 

[Oddball]

*awaits for university level guff..............

Pretty ironic that I've been accused of "nothing of worth to say" from someone who says nothing on an hourly basis

mithawa oiglaka miye Oddball na ni wanica sni ikiphi wokichiyaka ta

 

[Jebus_lives]

Some desperate levels of attention seeking try hard edginess in this thread.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Zero, I dialed it back a while ago, this and the Ukraine thread fiasco are thoroughly depressing. Tryin to have a laugh, lifes painful and serious enough. Not feeling to great at the moment, found out just after 8pm that someone I know has been found having hanged himself. RIP Chris. I thoroughly hate what you've done, but I can't imagine how bad things were to get you to that point mate. :'(

Sorry to hear this. I agree can never fully understand or imagine what it takes to get to that stage. Is horrific for all. RIP.

 

[carlos21]

Very sorry to hear that mate. Hope you are all holding up ok

Hiya wizard hope you are well tonight.

 

[Oddball]

You see the problem here don't you? If you claim a priori that you don't believe in MSM or a given source like Carl Sagan (who, along with David Attenborough, has done more to inspire millions of people into science-1/-what exactly have you done along these lines?) then no matter what evidence you are faced with you will always retreat into something along the lines of "I don't believe it" "they are part of a money-making conspiracy" "peer-reviewed research means nothing" etc. etc. You can see why this is tiresome, yes?

Because I can predict the future, let's try this: You write "you do know the famous "hockey-stick" graph was debunked ages ago don`t you" and this statement is simply untrue. This graph has withstood both scientific scrutiny (which counts for a lot) as well as various idiots from Libertarian think-tanks and other non-expert climate deniers with youtube accounts (which doesn't count for anything). The graph reflects a robust temperature trend that is best explained by human "forcing." The latest version combines several independent studies that all speak to the same trend of human-induced climate forcing. This is reported here, in the journal PNAS:

Loading…

www.pnas.org

There are several other independent peer-reviewed sources that can speak to the robustness of the hockey-stick graph, while, on the other hand,2/ there are very few peer-reviewed sources that argue against it. Since you brought up the hockey-stick graph, what expertise do you personally draw from to make a conclusion about this robustness of this study? And what do you make of it more generally?

1/ what am i doing in comparison to Attenborough? ?
you`re the one soiling your diaper about all this alarmist kak. - i`m laughing because i get that its a wind-up. they`re trolling.

why do X-Rebellion only disrupt the general public?
why don`t they don`t try to stop empty planes flying or even publicise the fact?

2/ science is not a consensus. its never settled, unless of course you want to stop the debate for a particular reason, then you would say its settled. hmm ?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

"long term data" ?- you mean a few decades of research

i had a quick look at that link you posted and boy-o-boy is that fella right up his own keister!

- its a word salad meant to blind you with science. i`m sure you`ve heard of that term but never equated it with you yourself being the one blinded.

it is nonsense, tailor-made for the likes of you.

I don’t think you know how much you’re embarrassing yourself here.

 

[Oddball]

I don’t think you know how much you’re embarrassing yourself here.

did you read any of that link? - that was embarrassing.

the guy pontificated about how "iconic, significant, insightful" etc his own study/graph was- do me a favour! -

 

[Oddball]

I chose to ignore you cos you’re out of your mind and follow in the long line of CA numpteys who decide that any evidence presented to them can be ignored and then they repeat the same thing like a broken record. Usually combined with ‘choice quotes’ like ‘ignoring MSM’ ‘looking at things from both angles’ or ‘done my research’ when in truth they are just unhappy men looking to blame someone else other than themselves as to how [Poor language removed] their lives are.

I don’t think you know how much you’re embarrassing yourself here.

you`re nearly as deluded as @Pretender17 with all this ignoring then commenting.

on the oxymoronic twaddle-o-meter you score really high.

 

[verreauxi]

"long term data" ?- you mean a few decades of research

i had a quick look at that link you posted and boy-o-boy is that fella right up his own keister!

- its a word salad meant to blind you with science. i`m sure you`ve heard of that term but never equated it with you yourself being the one blinded.

it is nonsense, tailor-made for the likes of you.

You are aware that by "long-term" data I'm saying that it is possible to measure the earth's temperatures in the past using ocean cores, which can give estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years ago.

You took a "quick look" of the study and since you clearly don't understand what "evidence" is (I gave you a definition in a previous post) the most you can do is attack the author as engaging word-salad and call it nonsense.

So, just to sum up: 1) you have no expertise to draw from in evaluating the evidence in that paper; 2) you don't even know what evidence means, and 3) given 1 and 2 you have to resort to childish substance-less attacks on the writing style, calling it "nonsense" and "word-salad" simply because you lack the education and/or expertise to understand basic sentences like (from the article):

"In this article, I discuss the lessons we can learn from studying paleoclimate records and climate model simulations of the “Common Era,” the period of the past two millennia during which the “signal” of human-caused warming has risen dramatically from the background of natural variability."

I would guess that pretty much all people here on GOT, except for you of course, could parse the meaning of the above sentence. Even the irony of calling it "word salad" is lost on you, over and above the meaning of it, which is clearly beyond your level.

 

[Wizard]

Hiya wizard hope you are well tonight.

Good thanks Carlos. Hope you’re having a good one too!

 

[Oddball]

You are aware that by "long-term" data I'm saying that it is possible to measure the earth's temperatures in the past using ocean cores, which can give estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years ago.

You took a "quick look" of the study and since you clearly don't understand what "evidence" is (I gave you a definition in a previous post) the most you can do is attack the author as engaging word-salad and call it nonsense.

So, just to sum up: 1) you have no expertise to draw from in evaluating the evidence in that paper; 2) you don't even know what evidence means, and 3) given 1 and 2 you have to resort to childish substance-less attacks on the writing style, calling it "nonsense" and "word-salad" simply because you lack the education and/or expertise to understand basic sentences like (from the article):

"In this article, I discuss the lessons we can learn from studying paleoclimate records and climate model simulations of the “Common Era,” the period of the past two millennia during which the “signal” of human-caused warming has risen dramatically from the background of natural variability."

I would guess that pretty much all people here on GOT, except for you of course, could parse the meaning of the above sentence. Even the irony of calling it "word salad" is lost on you, over and above the meaning of it, which is clearly beyond your level.

an "estimate" is just that! it`s not science - it means roughly calculate, that`s not good enough, sorry.

i know waffle and obfuscation when i see it.

most "climate science "is based on modelling - did you watch that video i posted earlier? the UN and other "climate alarmists" in 1989 were saying "by the year 2000 we will have passed the point of no return"
Al Gore said in 2006 that in 12 years we would pass the point of no return.
all the "climate models" have been proved wrong simply by the passing of time

of what significance is "guessing" what other GOT members opinions are? is that more of your irrefutable scientific proof, guessing?

you still haven`t answered the fact that empty planes fly for no reason except to protect their route/slot

 

[verreauxi]

2/ science is not a consensus. its never settled, unless of course you want to stop the debate for a particular reason, then you would say its settled. hmm ?

On what basis do you say that "science is not a consensus"? Where do you arrive at this silly conclusion.
Do you think physicists are sitting around discussing whether gravity exists? "Gee, I don't know Robert, I think this ball will fall 'up' when you drop it".
Do you think biologists are sitting around debating whether life evolved? "Sure, Tim, I get that fossil and genetic data provide overwhelming evidence for the evolutionary timeline of life on earth, but that kid Emir on GOT has just told me that humans and dinosaurs coexisted".
Do you think there was no consensus about how to land an astronaut on the moon, or develop a vaccine, or arrive at a set of data that overwhelmingly speaks to a given pattern?

You really don't know what you are talking about. Yes, science changes and it changes usually for the better based on the accrual of new data (e.g., replacing the geocentric universe with the heliocentric solar system). It's one of its major strengths (in contrast to, for example, the Bible, which largely doesn't change), but that doesn't mean that a collection of scientific evidence--a consensus--can't speak directly to a given question or problem.

 

[verreauxi]

an "estimate" is just that! it`s not science - it means roughly calculate, that`s not good enough, sorry.

i know waffle and obfuscation when i see it.

most "climate science "is based on modelling - did you watch that video i posted earlier? the UN and other "climate alarmists" in 1989 were saying "by the year 2000 we will have passed the point of no return"
Al Gore said in 2006 that in 12 years we would pass the point of no return.
all the "climate models" have been proved wrong simply by the passing of time

of what significance is "guessing" what other GOT members opinions are? is that more of your irrefutable scientific proof, guessing?

you still haven`t answered the fact that empty planes fly for no reason except to protect their route/slot

The issue of planes flying empty was between you and another poster, not me. I don't care, nor do I have expertise to give you an exact answer. I would surmise it has to do with getting the plane back to its original destination, since planes fly particular routes. For example, a plane and flight crew that leaves Nairobi to Dublin, usually has to fly back to Nairobi, independent of the number of passengers aboard to both return the flight crew and also the plane. But again, who cares. I can't even be arsed to google it. I hope this isn't your "ace in the hole" gotchya argument, because that would be quite sad for you.

I told you I could predict the future and I did. You not only are dismissive of things you don't understand, you refuse to even confront them, waving them off as something you don't believe or as bunk. Voila.

So again, to summarize,
1) you are ignorant of how science works
2) you don't understand what an "estimate" is (it is not the colloquial usage you think it is)
3) you clearly don't understand modeling and the difference between projection and prediction (if you did, you would realize that modeling is what allows planes to fly back empty, or put people on the moon, or determine the shape of a viral protein)
4) and because of all this, you ask deflecting questions about empty planes and call easily-readable scientific work "word salad" because you are either uneducated or lack intrinsic aptitude to parse the content of simple sentences that would be understood by a high-schooler.

 

[verreauxi]

Zero, I dialed it back a while ago, this and the Ukraine thread fiasco are thoroughly depressing. Tryin to have a laugh, lifes painful and serious enough. Not feeling to great at the moment, found out just after 8pm that someone I know has been found having hanged himself. RIP Chris. I thoroughly hate what you've done, but I can't imagine how bad things were to get you to that point mate. :'(

Very sorry to hear this. RIP to your friend.