(08-25-2023, 09:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2023, 05:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]If their treatment differs from that of others, it is "special" by definition of the word. If you believe special treatment can and should be earned, the question becomes one of criteria. Is V.P. sufficient? How about Senator, Mayor, General, Jeff Bezos, Tom Brady, etc.? Where do you draw the line?
The mugshot and bond were functionally superfluous, but totally appropriate legal procedure.
I agree with you.
I find this highly disconcerting. Did I fall asleep and awaken in an alternate universe?
(08-28-2023, 05:41 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2023, 09:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you.
I find this highly disconcerting. Did I fall asleep and awaken in an alternate universe?
Turns out I'm not always a contrarian. Trying to turn over a new leaf.
(08-04-2023, 06:16 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I recognize the system is screwing all of us and pitting us against each other to a degree.
I'm just very judicious about how far down the rabbit hole I go with that stuff.
Fine. We agree the system is rigged to pit us against each other. Where do we meet to change the system?
We meet to vote in a system that will enable us to rank multiple candidates on our ballot, which will encourage more and better candidates to run, and encourage good behavior and discourage negative campaigning by the candidates. Voila! Your candidate is no longer pitting you against the people who like other candidates!
(08-18-2023, 12:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-18-2023, 11:40 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]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?
Did you find the data FSG?
(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.
FSG offered an opinion on climate change and you agreed with it.
I offered one and you disagreed with it.
I guess you could say you technically didn't "opine" yourself. I think your opinion on the matter is clear but I suppose you have some plausible deniability.
Even so, taking you at your word, the best case scenario for you is you waded into an argument that you have no opinion about just to say you don't like one of the people arguing.
You know the saying, big minds talk ideas, small minds talk about people.
I presented data, not opinion. Do your own homework.
The vaccine deniers and Covid skeptics among us have better evidence for their opinion than those who deny man-made climate change or those who deny that we should do anything to mitigate it.
(08-29-2023, 07:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2023, 06:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I presented data, not opinion. Do your own homework.
The fact that you presented it means it was important or even decisive in your opinion. You think that knowing earth's temperatures millions of years ago, before humans existed, is relevant to guide human action now. That's your opinion.
And it's not a bad one.
It's just, if you stretched the timescale on the graph a little, the graph would actually suggest that the current rate of climate change is unprecedented and alarming, which is not your opinion. So you didn't present that graph.
![[Image: earth_temperature_timeline_2x.png]](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline_2x.png)
And yours only goes back a small percentage of all time in addition to the projections being horse [BLEEP]. But other than that, I guess cherry picked data to reinforce your faith is important to you guys. I mean, the graph literally says that that smooth the curves to account for spikes in both directions. What nonsense.
(08-29-2023, 10:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2023, 07:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that you presented it means it was important or even decisive in your opinion. You think that knowing earth's temperatures millions of years ago, before humans existed, is relevant to guide human action now. That's your opinion.
And it's not a bad one.
It's just, if you stretched the timescale on the graph a little, the graph would actually suggest that the current rate of climate change is unprecedented and alarming, which is not your opinion. So you didn't present that graph.
And yours only goes back a small percentage of all time in addition to the projections being horse [BLEEP]. But other than that, I guess cherry picked data to reinforce your faith is important to you guys. I mean, the graph literally says that that smooth the curves to account for spikes in both directions. What nonsense.
It says small changes might be smoothed out but only if they are small enough or brief enough. The change seen in modern times would not be smoothed out if it appeared earlier. It is neither small enough nor brief enough.
(08-29-2023, 10:26 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2023, 10:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And yours only goes back a small percentage of all time in addition to the projections being horse [BLEEP]. But other than that, I guess cherry picked data to reinforce your faith is important to you guys. I mean, the graph literally says that that smooth the curves to account for spikes in both directions. What nonsense.
It says small changes might be smoothed out but only if they are small enough or brief enough. The change seen in modern times would not be smoothed out if it appeared earlier. It is neither small enough nor brief enough.
Yeah, a 10 year period on a scale of millions of years isn't "brief enough", lol, whatever floats your boat.
(08-29-2023, 11:00 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2023, 10:26 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It says small changes might be smoothed out but only if they are small enough or brief enough. The change seen in modern times would not be smoothed out if it appeared earlier. It is neither small enough nor brief enough.
Yeah, a 10 year period on a scale of millions of years isn't "brief enough", lol, whatever floats your boat.
The modern timescale (the solid line as opposed to the dotted line) is about 150 years, not 10. The overall timescale of this data is 1000 years per gridline.
Not to mention the graph is literally 1degree Celsius per line. I would like to see that graph with the spikes. It might actually be informative.
(08-28-2023, 10:45 PM)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.
FSG offered an opinion on climate change and you agreed with it.
I offered one and you disagreed with it.
I guess you could say you technically didn't "opine" yourself. I think your opinion on the matter is clear but I suppose you have some plausible deniability.
Even so, taking you at your word, the best case scenario for you is you waded into an argument that you have no opinion about just to say you don't like one of the people arguing.
You know the saying, big minds talk ideas, small minds talk about people.
You talk about Donald Trump more than anyone else on this board. What conclusion should I draw from that fact?
(08-29-2023, 12:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention the graph is literally 1degree Celsius per line. I would like to see that graph with the spikes. It might actually be informative.
I am pretty sure that data doesn't exist. I think the nature of the ice cores we have doesn't give us that granularity. Do your own research! You wouldn't be asking this question if the data Supported the conclusion you have already drawn
(08-29-2023, 12:24 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 10:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
FSG offered an opinion on climate change and you agreed with it.
I offered one and you disagreed with it.
I guess you could say you technically didn't "opine" yourself. I think your opinion on the matter is clear but I suppose you have some plausible deniability.
Even so, taking you at your word, the best case scenario for you is you waded into an argument that you have no opinion about just to say you don't like one of the people arguing.
You know the saying, big minds talk ideas, small minds talk about people.
You talk about Donald Trump more than anyone else on this board. What conclusion should I draw from that fact?
Donald Trump is a big important person who is a big important threat to our ability to continue to discuss big important ideas freely.
I am none of those things.
Why do you keep wanting to talk about me?
Why do you criticize me for talking about him?
(08-29-2023, 12:24 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2023, 10:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
FSG offered an opinion on climate change and you agreed with it.
I offered one and you disagreed with it.
I guess you could say you technically didn't "opine" yourself. I think your opinion on the matter is clear but I suppose you have some plausible deniability.
Even so, taking you at your word, the best case scenario for you is you waded into an argument that you have no opinion about just to say you don't like one of the people arguing.
You know the saying, big minds talk ideas, small minds talk about people.
You talk about Donald Trump more than anyone else on this board. What conclusion should I draw from that fact?
That this is a political message board and Donald Trump is an important and very controversial politician?
(08-29-2023, 12:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2023, 12:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention the graph is literally 1degree Celsius per line. I would like to see that graph with the spikes. It might actually be informative.
I am pretty sure that data doesn't exist. I think the nature of the ice cores we have doesn't give us that granularity. Do your own research! You wouldn't be asking this question if the data Supported the conclusion you have already drawn
I do my own research all the time. I just don't care to do it for this debate. It's not worth my time. It's interesting how you seemingly are patting yourself on the back for doing your own research while posting "informative" memes. But hey, here's a different picture, since that's how we're considering ourselves informed these days:
![[Image: ngcb2]](https://scitechdaily.com/images/JR-Night-CENOGRID.jpg?ezimgfmt=ng:webp/ngcb2)
For what it's worth, I have looked into it. I think there is anthropomorphic climate change. I don't think it's as deadly as it's being made to believe. I think the same people who were manipulated to cede power to the government over COVID are the same ones who want to cede power over climate change. There's always a threat, and people always willing to instinctively call for help. Powerful folks know this and use it to manufacture crisis.
To be clear, I think it's important for us to be collecting data and carefully monitoring our impact on the Earth. It would be foolish to not be good stewards of our home. I am all for data collection and principled outlooks for our posterity. I'm not about being manipulated into having knee-jerk reactions to small variations.
The Ukraine War, Covid, Climate Change... they all are useful for redistributing the American dollar around the world, while simultaneously being skimmed by people who have a larger eco-footprint than me. People sure to get rich protecting my interests.
(08-29-2023, 12:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2023, 12:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] I am pretty sure that data doesn't exist. I think the nature of the ice cores we have doesn't give us that granularity. Do your own research! You wouldn't be asking this question if the data Supported the conclusion you have already drawn
I do my own research all the time. I just don't care to do it for this debate. It's not worth my time. It's interesting how you seemingly are patting yourself on the back for doing your own research while posting "informative" memes. But hey, here's a different picture, since that's how we're considering ourselves informed these days:
For what it's worth, I have looked into it. I think there is anthropomorphic climate change. I don't think it's as deadly as it's being made to believe. I think the same people who were manipulated to cede power to the government over COVID are the same ones who want to cede power over climate change. There's always a threat, and people always willing to instinctively call for help. Powerful folks know this and use it to manufacture crisis.
To be clear, I think it's important for us to be collecting data and carefully monitoring our impact on the Earth. It would be foolish to not be good stewards of our home. I am all for data collection and principled outlooks for our posterity. I'm not about being manipulated into having knee-jerk reactions to small variations.
The Ukraine War, Covid, Climate Change... they all are useful for redistributing the American dollar around the world, while simultaneously being skimmed by people who have a larger eco-footprint than me. People sure to get rich protecting my interests.
It's essentially the same graph FSG posted. The time scale is mostly times when there were no people at all.
(08-29-2023, 01:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]No [BLEEP].
So my opinion is that isn't very useful for determining if man made climate change (which you agree is happening) is alarming or not.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/2jGwrr7j5pAS3l61Dz/giphy.gif)
.gif "Laughing")