Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on November 30, 2016, 11:26:22 PM
-
:)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/30/climatologist-dr-roger-pielke-sr-i-cannot-recall-last-time-i-have-seen-such-a-cold-anomaly-forecast-across-almost-entire-usa/
-
Thats why they call it "climate change" now instead of global warming
-
The thing is, global warming creates extreme weather patterns whether cold or hot. More big storms, tornados, hurricanes etc. The overall temperature of the Earth on average will warm. This article actually makes your comment look quite ignorant. Just sayin.
-
Man made global warming is BS and only sheep cretins who do as they re told by government believe it.
-
Man made global warming is BS and only sheep cretins who do as they re told by government believe it.
Imbecile
-
The thing is, global warming creates extreme weather patterns whether cold or hot. More big storms, tornados, hurricanes etc. The overall temperature of the Earth on average will warm. This article actually makes your comment look quite ignorant. Just sayin.
Do you even realize how moronic and brainwashed you sound?
-
Do you even realize how moronic and brainwashed you sound?
Haha. Sorry you can't comprehend. Weather systems have been changing. Wake up. Let me guess, you watch a lot of you-tube?
-
Haha. Sorry you can't comprehend. Weather systems have been changing. Wake up. Let me guess, you watch a lot of you-tube?
Oh i see, sorry for my ignorance.... so this weather systems changing... is this a new phenomenon?
-
Oh i see, sorry for my ignorance.... so this weather systems changing... is this a new phenomenon?
Ok weather "patterns". Better?
-
Ok weather "patterns". Better?
I dont know... is it better? Im the ignorant one here. So its weather "patterns" that have never changed in the history of the earth until now.
Just keep changing the terminology until it fits your narrative. Irony is you are engaging in exactly what i was saying originally that its no longer called "global warming" for a reason. When your argument falls apart even under the most basic common sense analysis and real world reality... you just change the terminology to fit your beliefs.
-
:)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/30/climatologist-dr-roger-pielke-sr-i-cannot-recall-last-time-i-have-seen-such-a-cold-anomaly-forecast-across-almost-entire-usa/
Another classic coach post.
Coach doesn't understand statistics, so he thinks that a single instance of record cold disproves "global warming"
Well Coach, what does it prove, then? "global cooling"? ::)
It proves nothing. You don't draw conclusions from single instances.
If I toss a coin 10 times, there will be times when I get 10 heads in a row. That doesn't mean anything over the long run. It doesn't mean that heads tosses are happening more. The average is what we are looking at.
For some reason, stupid people are completely unable to understand averages and things like the bell curve. Any mention of an anomalous event and they are convinced against whatever it is they do not want to believe.
Anybody who nods their head with his loon really doesn't "get" what the concept of climate change is about. It is about the world and a long period of time. It isn't about today, tomorrow or even one single season. It is about the average temperature on earth. The temperature in America being at a record low for a little while is a drop in the ocean to the entire world over a long period. We hit record lows and highs often - we haven't been collecting data for very long.
And I'm not going to argue "for" climate change, here - I'm arguing against reading news like that and extrapolating the wrong conclusion.
-
Rocket, in your coin toss example, the problem is that the sample size isn't big enough for the probabilities to play out.
Don't the Climate Change advocates do the same thing when they talk about "record temperatures" as though it's something significant when they've only been keeping records for a 100 years, and the planet is two billion years old?
-
Imbecile
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but WikiLeaks did leak some compromising emails regarding global warming from the University of East Anglia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,[4][5] copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
The story was first broken by climate change critics[6] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[7] Several people considered climate change "skeptics" argued that the emails showed global warming was a scientific conspiracy, that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[8][9] The CRU rejected this, saying the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[10][11]
Now, obviously this isn't definitive proof. But it doesn't look good either.
-
:)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/30/climatologist-dr-roger-pielke-sr-i-cannot-recall-last-time-i-have-seen-such-a-cold-anomaly-forecast-across-almost-entire-usa/
gotta love arm chair neocon jesus loving scientists like coach who confuse weather with climate.
-
gotta love arm chair neocon jesus loving scientists like coach who confuse weather with climate.
(http://i.imgur.com/8WmbJaK.jpg)
-
Rocket, in your coin toss example, the problem is that the sample size isn't big enough for the probabilities to play out.
Don't the Climate Change advocates do the same thing when they talk about "record temperatures" as though it's something significant when they've only been keeping records for a 100 years, and the planet is two billion years old?
Exactly, the coin toss where you get 10 heads in a row doesn't disprove that the average toss will be about 50/50. It just proves that interesting things can and will happen.
I believe they mostly talk about record averages and generally across the earth over time - but that is moot. It can definitely be attributed to variance, too. It can always be attributed to variance by someone looking to discredit.
And attributing it to variance is a valid point - as opposed to finding out it is going to be cold tomorrow ::)
The general argument is something like this:
The earth has been getting hotter (average temp over the globe) since we started pumping.
Vs
Sometimes the earth goes through hotter periods.
Is it a coincidence or not?
If you're a denier, you go with the coincidence.
If you're balanced and intelligent enough to understand statistics, you might ask the question "How likely is it that we are going through a natural hotter period?"
If you're into science, you probably trust that that type of question has been posed and found to be statistically unlikely by looking at various factors.
And if it is statistically unlikely that it is just naturally hotter, aren't we essentially fucking idiots for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring it?
That's the problem. What we are being told is that it is statistically unlikely that the very true fact that earth has been getting hotter (on average).
Our choice is simple. Hope that it doesn't have something to do with us or pro-actively seek to ensure that it doesn't have something to do with us.
-
The thing is, global warming creates extreme weather patterns whether cold or hot. More big storms, tornados, hurricanes etc. The overall temperature of the Earth on average will warm. This article actually makes your comment look quite ignorant. Just sayin.
::)
-
gotta love arm chair neocon jesus loving scientists like coach who confuse weather with climate.
The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. Republican Donald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.
https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94/amp
Hope this helps
-
https://www.google.com/amp/townhall.com/tipsheet/andrewalker/2016/01/27/al-gore-end-of-the-world-n2110731%3Famp%3Dtrue
-
The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. Republican Donald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.
https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94/amp
Hope this helps
not sure what u mean, im excited about a trump presidency as long as he doesnt go all "christian" on issues
-
Do you even realize how moronic and brainwashed you sound?
weather and climate are different, do you understand the difference? each year on avg has been hotter than the last over the last decade. A cold front in the US doesn't negate a drought/heatwave in australia.
To deny the globe is heating up rapidly is idiotic and only serves to worsen the damage.
-
Rocket, in your coin toss example, the problem is that the sample size isn't big enough for the probabilities to play out.
Don't the Climate Change advocates do the same thing when they talk about "record temperatures" as though it's something significant when they've only been keeping records for a 100 years, and the planet is two billion years old?
We know the sources of climate change, ice cores, trees provide long term data. Nothing is unaccounted for, down to the solar output. If the sun's output was to reduce we would have less heat.
If you think it's only 100 years worth of data you are being foolish. They also make predictions like the oscillation of the polar vortex which we are currently seeing, which was predicted 20 years ago. It is cooling northern latitudes but warming extreme northen latitudes, hence glacial recession but colder weather. Overall, it's warming.
-
Exactly, the coin toss where you get 10 heads in a row doesn't disprove that the average toss will be about 50/50. It just proves that interesting things can and will happen.
I believe they mostly talk about record averages and generally across the earth over time - but that is moot. It can definitely be attributed to variance, too. It can always be attributed to variance by someone looking to discredit.
And attributing it to variance is a valid point - as opposed to finding out it is going to be cold tomorrow ::)
The general argument is something like this:
The earth has been getting hotter (average temp over the globe) since we started pumping.
Vs
Sometimes the earth goes through hotter periods.
Is it a coincidence or not?
If you're a denier, you go with the coincidence.
If you're balanced and intelligent enough to understand statistics, you might ask the question "How likely is it that we are going through a natural hotter period?"
If you're into science, you probably trust that that type of question has been posed and found to be statistically unlikely by looking at various factors.
And if it is statistically unlikely that it is just naturally hotter, aren't we essentially fucking idiots for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring it?
That's the problem. What we are being told is that it is statistically unlikely that the very true fact that earth has been getting hotter (on average).
Our choice is simple. Hope that it doesn't have something to do with us or pro-actively seek to ensure that it doesn't have something to do with us.
I think you may need some stats in your life, variance is accounted for, when you receive a value within an alpha range of .01/.05 you are near certain that it's not due to chance, the chances would be 1-5%, keep repeating and you can confirm your finding, this is how medicine works. You will never have exact causation, correlations are all causation is, just a very strong type.
-
The main reason the liberals perspective is so hard to believe on the issue for me is they stand to gain so much wealth by pushing this while the rest of the nation is losing. Reference Al Gores substantial gain in net worth since his big global warming push back in late 90s
-
weather and climate are different, do you understand the difference? each year on avg has been hotter than the last over the last decade. A cold front in the US doesn't negate a drought/heatwave in australia.
To deny the globe is heating up rapidly is idiotic and only serves to worsen the damage.
NASA as well as NOAA caught fudging/fabricating climate data to make it look like the earth is heating up.
http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
-
I think you may need some stats in your life, variance is accounted for, when you receive a value within an alpha range of .01/.05 you are near certain that it's not due to chance, the chances would be 1-5%, keep repeating and you can confirm your finding, this is how medicine works. You will never have exact causation, correlations are all causation is, just a very strong type.
This is my argument against using Variance, as well, as it begs the question: Variance to what?
A fair coin will have a 50% chance of coming up heads today, tomorrow or a 100 years from now.
You can't say that about an ever changing Universe.
-
not sure what u mean, im excited about a trump presidency as long as he doesnt go all "christian" on issues
It means, like the predictions of Clinton winning the election by 98%, like "Global warming" Climate change or whatever the left is calling it these days....it's total BS. As for the "Christian issues"? It was the lack of Christian belief and morals by the left that lead this country into a complete downfall since day one, eight years ago. War on Christianity, war on cops, war on whites and a complete divide of this entire country was based on a TOTALLY false narrative spewed by the entire political left with Obama leading the way that most fell for. That's not rhetoric, that's a fact.
-
It means, like the predictions of Clinton winning the election by 98%, like "Global warming" Climate change or whatever the left is calling it these days....it's total BS. As for the "Christian issues"? It was the lack of Christian belief and morals by the left that lead this country into a complete downfall since day one, eight years ago. War on Christianity, war on cops, war on whites and a complete divide of this entire country was based on a TOTALLY false narrative spewed by the entire political left with Obama leading the way that most fell for. That's not rhetoric, that's a fact.
generalize much?
so some entertainment " news" outlets on one side say clinton is gonna win, means mainstream scientists and research organizations are researching fake issues? hmmm right. brilliant
-
Do you even realize how moronic and brainwashed you sound?
'cept when you are as old as I am and remember when it actually snowed in the winter for more than a day and in Portland, air conditioning was a rare an mostly unneeded luxury.
-
Science isn't a political subject. I can't understand how scientific studies are impugned because the results somehow bother people. The Big Bang, evolution (not evolutionary theory, since none of its critics seem to understand it), climate change, even the age of the earth are all widely accepted theories, with more actual understanding among scientists. For some reason, some have issues with these findings, without having doen any actual peer reviewed studies to refute any of them. If they had, it would mean a Nobel Prize. (Note, I'm not a liberal, more an Independent centrist with conservtive economic views and more open social views.)
-
Science isn't a political subject. I can't understand how scientific studies are impugned because the results somehow bother people. The Big Bang, evolution (not evolutionary theory, since none of its critics seem to understand it), climate change, even the age of the earth are all widely accepted theories, with more actual understanding among scientists. For some reason, some have issues with these findings, without having doen any actual peer reviewed studies to refute any of them. If they had, it would mean a Nobel Prize. (Note, I'm not a liberal, more an Independent centrist with conservtive economic views and more open social views.)
Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother?
-
This is my argument against using Variance, as well, as it begs the question: Variance to what?
A fair coin will have a 50% chance of coming up heads today, tomorrow or a 100 years from now.
You can't say that about an ever changing Universe.
Variance to the standard you are working from, all things are levels of certainty, some accept it before others. For example, you state the universe is changing, in what manner? the laws that govern them do not, how variable is that, not very much? I don't need to recalculate the strong and weak nuclear forces in the same way I don't need to know every variable or data point in the earth's history, it's moot.
We collect date, make predictions and re test, if our predictions are 99% accurate I would agree with them, that's the alpha level. Said another way, the chances of receiving the value we did (that co2 is causing the warming) happens 1 out of 100 times.
We know the sun's output, we know it's relative mass, what it produces, it cycles, would the cycles be different in the past? perhaps, but we know the variables that make up the sun, we can predict output that is.
In this scenario we know the sun's output pretty accurately, we know the effect of wobble, orbit, ocean currents, jet stream etc.. we have fairly accurate data, I mean we can shoot laser beams from pin point to pin point km's away, drive vehicles on mars and make extraordinary calculations and predictions, to picoseconds even.
I don't need to meet every human to know we can't fly, there are laws governing this shit, it's repeatable and testable this isn't ancient greece.
I feel people who talk about this from a denial standpoint (no offense intended) haven't gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics were people are at the forefront of actual knowledge, making computers, rockets that self land, the precision required and dedication to reach those levels (as those in climate science have done) is astounding. It's not social studies, it's hard science.
-
Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother?
That's the thing you are missing, it is one sided there is but one truth. As if the name calling is unwarranted, creationism was thrown out of court, things like irreducibly complex are non-science, it's not the truth it's some bastardization.
Science is how you know which exercises and muscles to train, you are conflating social sciences with naturalistic sciences. Seriously Joe it's the case. What you are saying is like saying water is not made up of 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen, it's one sided, if you had evidence to the contrary or if anyone ever has it would predict things better.
-
Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother?
No. There absolutely is not.
-
"I feel people who talk about this from a denial standpoint (no offense intended) haven't gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics were people are at the forefront of actual knowledge, making computers, rockets that self land, the precision required and dedication to reach those levels (as those in climate science have done) is astounding. It's not social studies, it's hard science."
Yes, I suppose the 10 PhD scientists listed here (along with the 1,000+ dissenting scientists who signed the Climate Depot report and the 31,000+ who signed the OISM Global Warming Petition) have not gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics, etc.
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/
http://www.petitionproject.org/
-
"I feel people who talk about this from a denial standpoint (no offense intended) haven't gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics were people are at the forefront of actual knowledge, making computers, rockets that self land, the precision required and dedication to reach those levels (as those in climate science have done) is astounding. It's not social studies, it's hard science."
Yes, I suppose the 10 PhD scientists listed here (along with the 1,000+ dissenting scientists who signed the Climate Depot report and the 31,000+ who signed the OISM Global Warming Petition) have not gotten to the higher levels of academia, real academia, chemistry, physics, etc.
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/
http://www.petitionproject.org/
I agree for the most part. It's like the deniers don't even do any real research. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and some people are more likely to believe a you tube video with eerie music playing in the background, than actual facts from real scientists. It's not even worth arguing with some of these people, all they tend to say is that you are wrong, but never actually present facts or real arguments. Right el_torro?
-
Because the sciences are not just one sided. There is science to back both sides of all of the arguments you described above. I guaranty if someone posting about, lets say apologetics there would be more name calling from the other side rather than an actual discussion. It always happens so why bother?
Missed the point completely. Science isn't a field that exists to back up human political position, but a systematic attempt to understand the universe and all within it. We may only know a small fraction of the truth, but we are always learning. We may not always like the answers, but too bad, that's how it goes.