(08-17-2023, 09:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2023, 09:05 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Yet, despite admittedly knowing it was an unreliable standard of measure, you chose to present this singular anomaly in support of your theory. Do you see any relationship between this approach and the level of credibility you hold with this board?
Because not everyone on this board paid attention in high school, jackass.
It doesn't matter what I say. You will come up with another excuse to say I'm not credible.
You make it about me.
Address the fact that the monthly mean temperatures, annual mean temperatures, and decade long mean temperatures are all at record highs.
You asked for means and medians, I responded, and you as usual are wrong. Laughably wrong.
Deal with that, deal with your own wrongness, and stop making it about me, because you won't like it if I return the favor.
1) When you resort to name calling, it's like sending a message to the other guy saying, "You're winning."
2) If you want to convince others that you're the smartest person in the room, you'll need to occasionally make intelligent and well-considered comments.
3) Sorry about all my "wrongness". If you would refer me to the specific post in which I made factually inaccurate statement, I will be happy to make a correction or retraction.
(08-16-2023, 04:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Hot, yes. This was hotter. Hotter than ever. The hottest in terms of heat index. Do we need to go back to 2nd grade or whenever you were supposed to learn about the -er and -est suffixes?
Since when did we ever get heat warnings for the heat index? It's hot outside in Florida, any person with a brain knows this. There were never warnings, they just said it's going to be humid and hot. Then if you were outside, you knew to drink plenty of water and try to take it easy during the hottest part of the day.
Now because of stupid climate change pandemic, they need to keep the fear constant in the brainwashed. They release warnings that it's hot. The leftist start fires. Once a hurricane comes, they'll claim climate change made it worse even though it's been another lite year for storms. It's nothing but trying to control you through fear and the leftist eat it up.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(08-17-2023, 09:03 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2023, 09:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Because not everyone on this board paid attention in high school, jackass.
It doesn't matter what I say. You will come up with another excuse to say I'm not credible.
You make it about me.
Address the fact that the monthly mean temperatures, annual mean temperatures, and decade long mean temperatures are all at record highs.
You asked for means and medians, I responded, and you as usual are wrong. Laughably wrong.
Deal with that, deal with your own wrongness, and stop making it about me, because you won't like it if I return the favor.
1) When you resort to name calling, it's like sending a message to the other guy saying, "You're winning."
2) If you want to convince others that you're the smartest person in the room, you'll need to occasionally make intelligent and well-considered comments.
3) Sorry about all my "wrongness". If you would refer me to the specific post in which I made factually inaccurate statement, I will be happy to make a correction or retraction.
You got all smug and told me that the one hot day at Disney was an outlier.
I granted you that statistics usually tries to mute outliers and presented a bunch of more complicated non-outlying data instead. You ignored that data and said I was being dishonest because I initially presented a simple outlier. That what you're wrong about.
Then FSG is over here in the peanut gallery saying that the data for the last decade or century still isn't long term enough to convince him. One day is an outlier to you, one century is a blink of an eye to him. Both of you just don't want to understand and will grasp at any reason that allows you to change the subject or ignore the facts. There is literally no piece of evidence that will satisfy you, you're backed into a corner where your belief that climate change can be ignored will never be falsified or contradicted. The things that you will continue to justify regardless of evidence are religious beliefs. This is your religion. Anyone who tells you a regulation or lifestyle should change is wrong. That's your religion. You may think you hold other more traditional religious beliefs but you probably don't, not as tightly as you hold this one.
As for the personal attack you made under 2, you think you're getting under my skin. But I know I'm making thoughtful comments. They're just not the comments you want. And I'm not trying to be or thinking I am the smartest person in the room. I'd be saying the same things if Steven hawking was posting here. Not that I'm smarter than him, none of us are, I'm just going to say what I say what I think is true regardless. I listen but I still talk.
(08-17-2023, 09:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2023, 09:03 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]1) When you resort to name calling, it's like sending a message to the other guy saying, "You're winning."
2) If you want to convince others that you're the smartest person in the room, you'll need to occasionally make intelligent and well-considered comments.
3) Sorry about all my "wrongness". If you would refer me to the specific post in which I made factually inaccurate statement, I will be happy to make a correction or retraction.
You got all smug and told me that the one hot day at Disney was an outlier.
I granted you that statistics usually tries to mute outliers and presented a bunch of more complicated non-outlying data instead. You ignored that data and said I was being dishonest because I initially presented a simple outlier. That what you're wrong about.
Then FSG is over here in the peanut gallery saying that the data for the last decade or century still isn't long term enough to convince him. One day is an outlier to you, one century is a blink of an eye to him. Both of you just don't want to understand and will grasp at any reason that allows you to change the subject or ignore the facts. There is literally no piece of evidence that will satisfy you, you're backed into a corner where your belief that climate change can be ignored will never be falsified or contradicted. The things that you will continue to justify regardless of evidence are religious beliefs. This is your religion. Anyone who tells you a regulation or lifestyle should change is wrong. That's your religion. You may think you hold other more traditional religious beliefs but you probably don't, not as tightly as you hold this one.
As for the personal attack you made under 2, you think you're getting under my skin. But I know I'm making thoughtful comments. They're just not the comments you want. And I'm not trying to be or thinking I am the smartest person in the room. I'd be saying the same things if Steven hawking was posting here. Not that I'm smarter than him, none of us are, I'm just going to say what I say what I think is true regardless. I listen but I still talk.
I don't get "all smug" about what I learned in high school, I'm happy when I can just remember half of it. I simply pointed out that drawing a conclusion based on a single outlier statistic is generally considered unreliable in scientific research.
I don't know FSG's position on the global warming theory, but I don't see where he expressed an opinion either way. You made a statement that was demonstrably false, "The hottest ever.", and he presented research proving otherwise. If you want to assert an opinion that data recorded over the last fifty years is far more relevant than that dating back millions of years, fine, that's a viable argument. Phrase it concisely, with
factually accurate supporting research.
You frequently leap to conclusions as to the opinions of those who disagree with anything you say, without recognizing the disagreement stems from the lack of substance in your own statements, (
"But I know I'm making thoughtful comments."). Please refer to the underlined text above as an example. If you can provide a post where I have opined climate change to be either fact or fiction, I will immediately proclaim you to be the greatest poster ever in the history of this message board. Until then, I, like FSG, will remain an ever-vigilant guardian of the truth. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm suddenly craving a bag of peanuts.
(08-18-2023, 09:47 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2023, 09:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You got all smug and told me that the one hot day at Disney was an outlier.
I granted you that statistics usually tries to mute outliers and presented a bunch of more complicated non-outlying data instead. You ignored that data and said I was being dishonest because I initially presented a simple outlier. That what you're wrong about.
Then FSG is over here in the peanut gallery saying that the data for the last decade or century still isn't long term enough to convince him. One day is an outlier to you, one century is a blink of an eye to him. Both of you just don't want to understand and will grasp at any reason that allows you to change the subject or ignore the facts. There is literally no piece of evidence that will satisfy you, you're backed into a corner where your belief that climate change can be ignored will never be falsified or contradicted. The things that you will continue to justify regardless of evidence are religious beliefs. This is your religion. Anyone who tells you a regulation or lifestyle should change is wrong. That's your religion. You may think you hold other more traditional religious beliefs but you probably don't, not as tightly as you hold this one.
As for the personal attack you made under 2, you think you're getting under my skin. But I know I'm making thoughtful comments. They're just not the comments you want. And I'm not trying to be or thinking I am the smartest person in the room. I'd be saying the same things if Steven hawking was posting here. Not that I'm smarter than him, none of us are, I'm just going to say what I say what I think is true regardless. I listen but I still talk.
I don't get "all smug" about what I learned in high school, I'm happy when I can just remember half of it. I simply pointed out that drawing a conclusion based on a single outlier statistic is generally considered unreliable in scientific research.
I don't know FSG's position on the global warming theory, but I don't see where he expressed an opinion either way. You made a statement that was demonstrably false, "The hottest ever.", and he presented research proving otherwise. If you want to assert an opinion that data recorded over the last fifty years is far more relevant than that dating back millions of years, fine, that's a viable argument. Phrase it concisely, with factually accurate supporting research.
You frequently leap to conclusions as to the opinions of those who disagree with anything you say, without recognizing the disagreement stems from the lack of substance in your own statements, ("But I know I'm making thoughtful comments."). Please refer to the underlined text above as an example. If you can provide a post where I have opined climate change to be either fact or fiction, I will immediately proclaim you to be the greatest poster ever in the history of this message board. Until then, I, like FSG, will remain an ever-vigilant guardian of the truth. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm suddenly craving a bag of peanuts.
You is plural in the underlined sentence. Sneakers and FSG.
You, singular, sneakers only, won't believe something that happened for a day or week or month.
You, singular, FSG only, won't believe anything that goes back less than a million years.
You plural, the combined effects, simply won't believe any evidence.
I appreciate you saying I made a viable argument.
But don't tell me that. Tell FSG. That way you won't end up lumped in with him next time.
(08-17-2023, 05:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2023, 03:31 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]It's not the "$20k car" that annoys me (most of them are way more than that), it's the ignorant self centered people that drive them thinking that they are "saving the planet" while getting in everyone's way.
Hey I want slowpokes out of the left lane as much as you. I've had to drive big trucks a few times in my life and it's fine, I just prefer a small car when I'm just commuting. I'm not looking down on anyone though. You shouldn't assume any prius driver is either. It's just a person in a car. Why assume anything about them? Why cast them as a player in your version of our imaginary culture war?
And there's the issue, the war is happening whether you believe it or not. Sticking your head in the sand won't save you in the end, it just puts your [BLEEP] up in the air to be an easy target.
(08-18-2023, 09:47 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2023, 09:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You got all smug and told me that the one hot day at Disney was an outlier.
I granted you that statistics usually tries to mute outliers and presented a bunch of more complicated non-outlying data instead. You ignored that data and said I was being dishonest because I initially presented a simple outlier. That what you're wrong about.
Then FSG is over here in the peanut gallery saying that the data for the last decade or century still isn't long term enough to convince him. One day is an outlier to you, one century is a blink of an eye to him. Both of you just don't want to understand and will grasp at any reason that allows you to change the subject or ignore the facts. There is literally no piece of evidence that will satisfy you, you're backed into a corner where your belief that climate change can be ignored will never be falsified or contradicted. The things that you will continue to justify regardless of evidence are religious beliefs. This is your religion. Anyone who tells you a regulation or lifestyle should change is wrong. That's your religion. You may think you hold other more traditional religious beliefs but you probably don't, not as tightly as you hold this one.
As for the personal attack you made under 2, you think you're getting under my skin. But I know I'm making thoughtful comments. They're just not the comments you want. And I'm not trying to be or thinking I am the smartest person in the room. I'd be saying the same things if Steven hawking was posting here. Not that I'm smarter than him, none of us are, I'm just going to say what I say what I think is true regardless. I listen but I still talk.
I don't get "all smug" about what I learned in high school, I'm happy when I can just remember half of it. I simply pointed out that drawing a conclusion based on a single outlier statistic is generally considered unreliable in scientific research.
I don't know FSG's position on the global warming theory, but I don't see where he expressed an opinion either way. You made a statement that was demonstrably false, "The hottest ever.", and he presented research proving otherwise. If you want to assert an opinion that data recorded over the last fifty years is far more relevant than that dating back millions of years, fine, that's a viable argument. Phrase it concisely, with factually accurate supporting research.
You frequently leap to conclusions as to the opinions of those who disagree with anything you say, without recognizing the disagreement stems from the lack of substance in your own statements, ("But I know I'm making thoughtful comments."). Please refer to the underlined text above as an example. If you can provide a post where I have opined climate change to be either fact or fiction, I will immediately proclaim you to be the greatest poster ever in the history of this message board. Until then, I, like FSG, will remain an ever-vigilant guardian of the truth. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm suddenly craving a bag of peanuts.
Bro, thanks. That's going on my business card! And try the cajun boiled, they're outta sight today.
(08-18-2023, 09:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 09:47 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get "all smug" about what I learned in high school, I'm happy when I can just remember half of it. I simply pointed out that drawing a conclusion based on a single outlier statistic is generally considered unreliable in scientific research.
I don't know FSG's position on the global warming theory, but I don't see where he expressed an opinion either way. You made a statement that was demonstrably false, "The hottest ever.", and he presented research proving otherwise. If you want to assert an opinion that data recorded over the last fifty years is far more relevant than that dating back millions of years, fine, that's a viable argument. Phrase it concisely, with factually accurate supporting research.
You frequently leap to conclusions as to the opinions of those who disagree with anything you say, without recognizing the disagreement stems from the lack of substance in your own statements, ("But I know I'm making thoughtful comments."). Please refer to the underlined text above as an example. If you can provide a post where I have opined climate change to be either fact or fiction, I will immediately proclaim you to be the greatest poster ever in the history of this message board. Until then, I, like FSG, will remain an ever-vigilant guardian of the truth. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm suddenly craving a bag of peanuts.
You is plural in the underlined sentence. Sneakers and FSG.
You, singular, sneakers only, won't believe something that happened for a day or week or month.
You, singular, FSG only, won't believe anything that goes back less than a million years.
You plural, the combined effects, simply won't believe any evidence.
I appreciate you saying I made a viable argument.
But don't tell me that. Tell FSG. That way you won't end up lumped in with him next time.
Lol, you got me all wrong man. I don't discount climate change, it's real and always been real. What I discount is the alarmism inherent in the modern climate movement. People say extreme things (like it's never been hotter) that are easily disproven and then wonder why people don't take them seriously. Or they make predictions (neh prophecies) about the end of all life as we know it if we don't give them all our money while they continue to live the high life crusading to save the world. And why we should keep listening to the Profits when they've been wrong on just about every prediction since the 1960s is something I don't understand. You're not dumb but man have they hooked you.
(08-18-2023, 10:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 09:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You is plural in the underlined sentence. Sneakers and FSG.
You, singular, sneakers only, won't believe something that happened for a day or week or month.
You, singular, FSG only, won't believe anything that goes back less than a million years.
You plural, the combined effects, simply won't believe any evidence.
I appreciate you saying I made a viable argument.
But don't tell me that. Tell FSG. That way you won't end up lumped in with him next time.
Lol, you got me all wrong man. I don't discount climate change, it's real and always been real. What I discount is the alarmism inherent in the modern climate movement. People say extreme things (like it's never been hotter) that are easily disproven and then wonder why people don't take them seriously. Or they make predictions (neh prophecies) about the end of all life as we know it if we don't give them all our money while they continue to live the high life crusading to save the world. And why we should keep listening to the Profits when they've been wrong on just about every prediction since the 1960s is something I don't understand. You're not dumb but man have they hooked you.
I think you're getting creative with your phrasing to avoid the issue.
Do you agree there is a warming trend, as measured by modern thermometers, in the last century?
Do you agree that the slope of this warming trend is more rapid than the other changes we can infer occurred in the last million years?
Do you agree that CO2 emitted by humans is the best explanation for the cause of that trend?
(08-18-2023, 11:40 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 11:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're getting creative with your phrasing to avoid the issue.
Do you agree there is a warming trend, as measured by modern thermometers, in the last century?
Do you agree that the slope of this warming trend is more rapid than the other changes we can infer occurred in the last million years?
Do you agree that CO2 emitted by humans is the best explanation for the cause of that trend?
Yes.
No.
No.
OK, well you were the one with access to the reconstruction of millions of years of temperature data. Show me a 100 year window at any point in the last million years where the slope of the average temperature over time was steeper than it is in the current 100 year window. Extra credit: do the same for CO2 concentration. Can you find any 100 year window in the last million years where the change in CO2 concentration was as rapid as the current time?
(08-18-2023, 10:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 09:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You is plural in the underlined sentence. Sneakers and FSG.
You, singular, sneakers only, won't believe something that happened for a day or week or month.
You, singular, FSG only, won't believe anything that goes back less than a million years.
You plural, the combined effects, simply won't believe any evidence.
I appreciate you saying I made a viable argument.
But don't tell me that. Tell FSG. That way you won't end up lumped in with him next time.
Lol, you got me all wrong man. I don't discount climate change, it's real and always been real. What I discount is the alarmism inherent in the modern climate movement. People say extreme things (like it's never been hotter) that are easily disproven and then wonder why people don't take them seriously. Or they make predictions (neh prophecies) about the end of all life as we know it if we don't give them all our money while they continue to live the high life crusading to save the world. And why we should keep listening to the Profits when they've been wrong on just about every prediction since the 1960s is something I don't understand. You're not dumb but man have they hooked you.
Just to skip to the end of the conversation, I don't agree with everything that climate activists say, just as you don't agree with everything that climate denialists say.
I don't think these changes in climate are likely to cause extinction of humans. We are too crafty, and too adaptable, and we will have a breeding population clinging to life somewhere on earth regardless of plausible changes to global climate.
But I do think war and famine and pestilence on a scale not seen since the 1300s is likely. And I think reasonable steps can be taken to mitigate it. Among those steps are things environmentalists oppose, like nuclear power, atmospheric albedo modification, and ocean seeding. The cost of the latter two is actually negligible and not likely to affect your life at all. In fact we might have more, better, and cheaper seafood after seeding the ocean. But only a government can authorize and organize that effort.
(08-18-2023, 09:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 09:47 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get "all smug" about what I learned in high school, I'm happy when I can just remember half of it. I simply pointed out that drawing a conclusion based on a single outlier statistic is generally considered unreliable in scientific research.
I don't know FSG's position on the global warming theory, but I don't see where he expressed an opinion either way. You made a statement that was demonstrably false, "The hottest ever.", and he presented research proving otherwise. If you want to assert an opinion that data recorded over the last fifty years is far more relevant than that dating back millions of years, fine, that's a viable argument. Phrase it concisely, with factually accurate supporting research.
You frequently leap to conclusions as to the opinions of those who disagree with anything you say, without recognizing the disagreement stems from the lack of substance in your own statements, ("But I know I'm making thoughtful comments."). Please refer to the underlined text above as an example. If you can provide a post where I have opined climate change to be either fact or fiction, I will immediately proclaim you to be the greatest poster ever in the history of this message board. Until then, I, like FSG, will remain an ever-vigilant guardian of the truth. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm suddenly craving a bag of peanuts.
You is plural in the underlined sentence. Sneakers and FSG.
You, singular, sneakers only, won't believe something that happened for a day or week or month.
You, singular, FSG only, won't believe anything that goes back less than a million years.
You plural, the combined effects, simply won't believe any evidence.
I appreciate you saying I made a viable argument.
But don't tell me that. Tell FSG. That way you won't end up lumped in with him next time.
What a way to deflect when someone calls you out for your nonesense. Give us more English lessons based on your hero Kamala Harris. You both make about the same amount of sense.
(08-18-2023, 03:39 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 09:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You is plural in the underlined sentence. Sneakers and FSG.
You, singular, sneakers only, won't believe something that happened for a day or week or month.
You, singular, FSG only, won't believe anything that goes back less than a million years.
You plural, the combined effects, simply won't believe any evidence.
I appreciate you saying I made a viable argument.
But don't tell me that. Tell FSG. That way you won't end up lumped in with him next time.
What a way to deflect when someone calls you out for your nonesense. Give us more English lessons based on your hero Kamala Harris. You both make about the same amount of sense.
Spare me. No matter what my reply was, you would have called it more nonsense.
(08-20-2023, 10:24 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Trump announces he'll skip upcoming debates. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't admit pending charges/trials are a factor.
Trump says he won't take part in Republican debates (msn.com)
Legal issues aside, he probably assumes he doesn’t have to and he’s probably right. Seems to have an insurmountable lead for the GOP nomination at this point so why put himself out there for the other candidates to take shots at him?
(08-21-2023, 09:03 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Pumping out the propaganda before the ashes are cool and all of the bodies found.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/life...r-AA1fp3tR
The beauty of the new AI-driven creative sphere. More propaganda to more people at a faster pace than ever before.
(08-21-2023, 04:43 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2023, 10:24 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Trump announces he'll skip upcoming debates. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't admit pending charges/trials are a factor.
Trump says he won't take part in Republican debates (msn.com)
Legal issues aside, he probably assumes he doesn’t have to and he’s probably right. Seems to have an insurmountable lead for the GOP nomination at this point so why put himself out there for the other candidates to take shots at him?
Oh, shots will be taken whether he's there or not. He'll respond on Twitter, tossing out the usual variety of rebuttals and insults, but it will be torture for him to watch (especially when a little laughter erupts in the audience).