bjack on 17/3/2015 at 22:31
Naturally, I have a bias against someone trying to take my life away. You have to do more than, "These guys paid by the government say that it is all true."
And for those that were spewing hate toward one of the greatest comics off all time, George Carlin… may a very nasty little child with bad intentions put a flaming bag of dog poop on your porch! :p Read some of his work. While not as eloquent as an Orwell, his words about euphemisms are classic. All you PC people need to see these. Maybe you'll get what some of us dislike about your hypocrisy and desire to control everyone's minds.
The use of a special set of words to describe what could be easily said in one word is idiotic. Oh sorry, that would be "mental inefficiency deficit syndromatically incorrect." See, I have to even invent non-words just to twist that shite into PC! Yes, I could make it flow nicer, as in "mentally inefficient," but that does not convey the correct meaning of idiot. Oh, that is the secret here… You don't want the original meaning to be expressible at all! The science is settled, so SHUT UP! You can't ever use the n-word, but all white people are crackers! Ignorance is Strength. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
An aside here: Yes everyone, I do understand and know that the term idiot is actually very specific and I am using it incorrectly above. I am using idiot in the vernacular sense, something that PC hates because they cannot control it, therefore they cannot control the thought or the person.
Kolya on 18/3/2015 at 01:39
You have created yourself a fine concept of an enemy: The PC people who use too many words in want of controlling your mind. Don't let them get ya!
faetal on 18/3/2015 at 09:17
Quote Posted by bjack
First, I do not know any of you here, but would probably enjoy a pint or two with most of you. In my advancing years, I now try to keep out of religion and political discussions, but bite from time to time. Since you cannot hear how I would express these following words, they can come off as harsh to some. They are meant to be more thoughtful and questioning. Devil's advocate, if you will. Think of Morgan Freeman's voice as you read this. Enjoy the fun, hatred, or indifference to them as you will. Cheers - Bjack
Ok to the answers:
The 97% did not peer review the research. From what I have read and heard many times over, they only expressed their opinions based on reports of the research, or simply their overall opinion. Sort of what you and I are doing with the dumbed down data produced to the masses.
This is the second wave and arguably the most important part of peer review. You don't just need to get your research past three experts for publication, you also need to defend your paper against the rest of your field who, if they find inconsistencies or errors, will write to the journal with a thorough lambasting, to which you are expected to respond, either with clarification, or in the case of actual errors being present, an
erratum, corrections and sometimes, a retraction of the article. This isn't apparent to those who don't work in research, which explains why the under-trained can justify sneering at it to themselves.
Quote:
As for Insoc, that is the political/social system in Orwell's 1984. It is an extremely famous book that I highly recommend - also Animal Farm. The term INSOC is short for English Socialism and makes the Nazis look like puppies.
Yeah, I've read those books - it's In
Gsoc. I thought you might have been referring to something else, given that there are lots of online societies using the suffix -SOC these days.
Quote:
In today's world, a mind form of Insoc is seen in the PC movement. One may support rap music, yet must damn white people for saying the same words, even in jest. Doublethink is used when hating Jeremy Clarkson for intolerance, but calling for his painful death. Delighting in the pain of another just because you do not like their viewpoint is pretty psychotic to me. Maybe it was just having a laugh? Maybe Jeremy is too? :cheeky:
Pretty obvious I don't actually want Jeremy Clarkson to die. Fairly obvious also, to anyone who has seen his publishing output in the UK media, that he actually does promote the idea that global warming shouldn't have any impact on human levels of fossil fuel consumption. Etc...
Quote:
Using doublethink is being a conscious hypocrite, believing in science and not accepting scientific evidence when it does not fit the parties belief. It is holding onto socialism, which is extremely unfair to those that contribute more, in the name of fairness. It is expressing hate in the name of freedom and love. It is bombing abortion clinics.
Yes, a lot of people are happy to trust science, except when it clashes with their personal views. Then all of a sudden, you see frenzied googling for anything which can be used to highlight the sentence "science isn't infallible", which then gets promoted to "anything I personally want to believe is on a par with years of scientific study".
Quote:
At least Clarkson is an honest bigoted loud mouth. You know he will be a prick at all times. While I do not always like him, I do respect his right to be an idiot. What is important is not what he says, but his freedom to say it. Those that want to shut him up are PC fascists. We are talking about the BBC though. I do watch BBC America for more than just Top Gear. Along with CNN, I watch BBC to see what the left fascists are up to. I then watch Fox News to see what the right fascists are up to.
I don't know of anyone wishing to shut Clarkson up, but everyone has the right to call a prick a prick and if he assaulted a co-worker, then he does deserve the sack - he's not above common decency.
If I were you, I'd do some more reading, since your world view comes across as someone who has read a few Orwell books and then decided that maybe Fox News is more fun.
Also, that thing you keep calling PC? It's just a giant dude made of hay.
faetal on 18/3/2015 at 09:25
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Given that your arguments regarding other topics have been based on the assumption that if the majority of peer reviewed studies say one thing(see previous arguments about "settled science says that...."), then no bias exists, I would assume that you know that fact but conveniently neglect it when it suits your purposes.
See my response to bjack. Peer review is an ongoing process and part of my scientific training involved learning how to separate good studies from bad and how to use reviews and meta-analyses to determine which long-standing ideas have been solidified by ongoing research and which have altered or lost favour. Forgive me for not going into so much detail every time and just using the shorthand "peer reviewed".
Either way, if you present a counter-argument with enough detail, then yes, you can compete with peer-reviewed studies. Simply googling an (ironically, peer-reviewed) article which states some of the weak areas of peer-reviewed science isn't really much other than a half-hearted attempt to attack science itself rather than the topic you think science might be coming up short on. Of course the peer-review process is flawed - look at all of the studies which find positive effects for homoeopathy which get published. The trick is knowing which journals have the higher standards and knowing how good study design works so you can apply filtration.
Another really good aspect of peer-review is that the public also contribute indirectly. Wherever there is controversy, there is intensified reviewing, meta-analysis and
de novo studies. This is why the science around e.g. vaccines, autism, climate change, evolution etc... is far more rigorous than e.g. cytokine maps of skin immunology, because you don't get throngs of the general public whipped into a frenzy about the latter. The beauty part of this is that it permeates into wikipedia, so you can look at wikipedia on these subjects and get a decent picture of the current facts, because the pages have been contested so hotly, that only the most robust references have stood the test of fire.
zombe on 18/3/2015 at 16:00
Quote Posted by bjack
I got my degree in Biology and Chemistry, so I do know a little bit about the Scientific Method.
I do not have any degrees etc in any, even remotely, relevant fields - but, whatever, neither do you.
Quote Posted by bjack
One does not cook or adjust measurements to make them fit one's hypothesis, and that is exactly what some of the research has done.
What kind of scientific method did you use to drill that laughably baseless assertion into your head?
Quote Posted by bjack
So, are we warming at this time? Yes. Is it caused by CO2, CH4, etc? That is not yet proven.
Proven? Are you trolling? What ... "level of proof" are you expecting? It, like absolutely fucking everything outside the field of mathematics, will NEVER be proven. I would even say that science does not care what is "true" (ie. it admits Truth is too fluffy concept to be confidently pinned) - it only cares about useful models ('useful' -> predicts/conforms to reality as perceived under specific/known conditions). Ie. stuff that works ... either via mystical-magical fairies (watching currently the particle physics lecture series on the stanford youtube page [i find the quantum field theory especially neat/satisfying - so, watching various takes of all kinds of relevant stuff]) or otherwise seeming to model reality close enough.
Leaving CO2 out of anthropogenic (yeah, the wast majority of it is really ours and not from other sources) global climate change models - fails the models, badly (notice the plural and the implied fact that the models work very well otherwise). It is the only explanation we have (a thoroughly explored one at that), and it works (past and future (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIwlRClHsQ) ).
Quote Posted by bjack
Unless you love Big Brother and perform doublethink, there really is an objective reality out there, and a history for that matter.
Wut? Could you be a bit more specific? Sounds like woo-woo.
Quote Posted by bjack
Correlating CO2 increases with temperature rise may sound like a nice hypothesis, but it is not sound theory at this point.
Wow. Can you name anything in it that is unsound? (PS. 'soundness' is a math term - its applicability in other sciences tends to be much more limited. Just a reminder, because you also seem to expect 'proofs' outside math. Math is a powerful abstract modelling tool - not a chunk of observed reality like what other sciences are concerned with).
Quote Posted by bjack
Warming makes CO2 rise, not the other way around.
Lol, no (its a pleasure to play climate science denier BullshitBingo with you).
Since you clearly do not care what climate science actually says, i throw you this funky bone (not terribly relevant, just can not resist adding confusion):
* oceans ability to bind CO2 lowers with temperature rise, causing a comparative rise of CO2 -> global warming causes inflated CO2 rise (since oceans can not keep up with atmospheric changes then the effect will lag behind warming [atmosphere itself also lags behind the actual current equilibrium point because of oceans being so far behind]) ... it is called positive feedback.
bjack on 18/3/2015 at 18:57
Faetal - sorry, yes it is Ingsoc. My bad memory. I guess it comes from too many times at 10. And I do read much more than Orwell. It's just that Orwell and Huxley got so much right. Unfortunately we did not listen. And speaking of Orwell, things like flu and natural disasters do not come into play in his story, which of course they would in reality. It kills his story for me a bit, but the overall premise is fascinating.
Zombe - I know some pro-warminsts and I can have calm conversations with them about this topic. There are others that are too religiously invested - treating the idea as dogma, and no amount of logic will convince them otherwise. I know better to bring up the subject with them and if they do, I change it, or just let them get it out of their system, while I go get a beer.
The simple questioning dogmatic statements (97%) is not denial. The points about crickets and CO2 were demonstrations that opposite causes may be true, or that the current views may be false. Just as Ptolemy's planet maps had to altered into epicyclic orbits to keep the Earth in the center when observations showed recession in orbits, it seems the climate scientists are having to patch up their work to make it still fit their dogma outcome. Maybe, just maybe the undesired outcomes mean the original premise is wrong? That is not denial. It is questioning.
While the computers and models are getting much more sophisticated than even a few years ago, they still cannot take into account all factors that will be significant. They simply don't know enough. Yes, they are measuring the oceans with much more precision (temps, tide heights, current speeds at many levels, etc.) All of these bits are needed. All the data must be present, and still a butterfly flaps its wings and the whole thing takes an unexpected turn.
The fact is, some of the scientists have cooked their temps to make them fit the models. That is a no no.
Here is one article on the matter of the "97% agreement"
(
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books)
Part of what it said:
"Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,”
"Only 65 (!) Abstracts in Cook Study of 12,000 Strongly Endorse AGW!"
The Cook study is what Obama used to incorrectly say 97% of scientists support AGW.
Or this one about how the fed researches left out 1936 on purpose to make the present look much hotter.
(
http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/03/did-federal-climate-scientists-fudge-tem)
"...he does not think that NCDC researchers are intentionally distorting the record. But he believes that the researchers have likely succumbed to this confirmation bias in their temperature analyses. In other words, he thinks the NCDC's scientists do not question the results of their adjustment procedures because they report the trend the researches expect to find. Watts wants the center's algorithms, computer coding, temperature records, and so forth to be checked by researchers outside the climate science establishment."
Oh yeah, that is going to happen… I can just hear it now, "You are not qualified to understand the implications of the changes that take place within the matrix on the underlying principle of the matter at hand." What do they have to hide?
I never said I denied climate change. I said I question it and do not think it is settled at all. I think those that say it is settled have an agenda and it is not to save the planet. The agenda is to redistribute resources from the 1st world to the 3rd. It is world welfare, if you will. Communists and Socialists love this. Those that are more Libertarian tend to see these actions as organized theft. I want better evidence before I start living in a cave.
And to faetal, that PC "Hay Man" you speak of is getting a lot of people fired from jobs or kicked out of school in the USA. We are subject to "zero tolerance". It's not just about racists terms, it is about speech that does not jibe with the Democrat Party (and soon to be the Republican Party - tyranny goes both ways). One cannot be against Obama's policies without being branded a racist. One is not allowed to use the term "Radical Islam" to describe what is going on in Iraq and Syria. If you do use that term, which is truth by the way, you are branded as a racist. If you see non-white people looting, you are to let it go, since they are but a product of racist white cultural bias and deserve a pass. White people looting is reason for shoot to kill. This poisonous thinking actually is getting accepted in the USA today.
And yes, Clarkson is said to have punched a co-worker. I would love to know what the guy did to make Clarkson think violence was needed. What I do know is if Clarkson were a female and had slapped the producer, she would be off the hook. Many policies for many people… Hypocrisy.
bjack on 18/3/2015 at 19:08
Quote Posted by Kolya
You have created yourself a fine concept of an enemy: The PC people who use too many words in want of controlling your mind. Don't let them get ya!
It more annoying than dangerous, unless you get fired for using the wrong word in the wrong group at the wrong time. Heaven help you if you are white, go to a rap concert, chant along (no, it is not singing), and some ass-hat posts a short video of you doing this. You WILL get death threats, be fired, be beaten, have news media all up in your face, and will not be able to show yourself in public fort least 2 weeks. Then some other nit wit will get the shaming treatment on the internet and you will get forgotten. Moral of the story? If you are white, don't act black, Mexican, or any other race or ethnicity that is not yours. It is fine that they can make all the fun and mock you all they want, but you must not do the same to them. This is done in the name of payback. While I did not "do" anything to these people, but it is apparently my cross to bare.
It is this type of shite that Clarkson exposes and the libs hate to see laid bare. Until he punched a colleague, he had done nothing wrong. OK, the H984FLK (or whatever it was) was pretty stupid and did get his crew in a world of hurt. That he denies he did it either means he really didn't and someone set him up, or he is a liar.
DDL on 18/3/2015 at 20:54
Quote Posted by bjack
One cannot be against Obama's policies without being branded a racist. One is not allowed to use the term "Radical Islam" to describe what is going on in Iraq and Syria. If you do use that term, which is truth by the way, you are branded as a racist. If you see non-white people looting, you are to let it go, since they are but a product of racist white cultural bias and deserve a pass. White people looting is reason for shoot to kill. This poisonous thinking actually is getting accepted in the USA today.
Hyperbole police just called, they want their gigantic bag of crazy back.
bjack on 18/3/2015 at 21:38
Quote Posted by DDL
Hyperbole police just called, they want their gigantic bag of crazy back.
It is happening. Majority of minority student council member vote to remove the American flag from UCI because it is "non-inclusive". They were overruled, fortunately.
2 idiots chant nasty racist crap on a bus. Only one of 5 buses I might add. 2 were known to have chanted, some seem to follow along and no one on that bus stopped them - at least in the 9 seconds of playtime. Maybe sometime did afterward. We do not know, but there were at least 2 assholes on that bus. I get that. However, the entire fraternity is booted off campus and its national fraternity has kicked it out permanently. Everyone is 100% guilty by association. Nice Hitlerian justice there. More like Stalin. One guy does something, so kill his whole family. How about education and help instead of zero tolerance bullshit?
Meanwhile, millions of ethnic people may chant racist shit at concerts with no repercussions. Comics can call white people crackers all they want.
And DDL, you honestly can say that you have not heard one case where disagreement with Obama automatically means you are a racist? You must not read comments on Yahoo and whatnot. You also apparently do not listen to the poison that is Al Sharpton. That that tax cheat and race baiter is given a voice on MSNBC is extremely telling where they stand. Where are the Rev. Kings when we need them? Oh wait, they cannot divide and concur. No, we need to make everyone hate each other. Pick apart every little thing that whitey does. Strike that, white men do. Everyone else gets a pass, well maybe not Cosby :cheeky:
