Originally Posted by El Kabong
Eat shit
Twice.
 |
|
|
|
Thanks: 0
Likes: 4
Dislikes: 0
Old Guard
Array
Re: Scientific Fraud
Eat shit
Twice.
Re: Scientific Fraud
Serial arsonist behind California wildfires caught as Gore blames ‘global warming’ | Climate Depot
So I guess the heat got to the arsonist and made him crazy so that he had to go set fires....no word yet if Al Gore will be the defense lawyer for serial arsonist Anthony Pashilk or if he will try the "global warming made me do it" defense
Re: Scientific Fraud
Leonardo DiCaprio, the Malaysian Money Scandal and His "Unusual" Foundation | Hollywood Reporter
Key points
Guests at Environment Gala Flown in on Helicopter
Each Served Whole Fish -- After Watching Film on Overfishing!
Global Warming and Socialism for Thee but not for Me sayeth the Di Caprio
Leo's a heck of an actor but for fucks sake get off the soap box and just stick to playing pretend....people need to understand that actors ain't necessarily the best and brightest, Leo has GED, he didn't go to college, he doesn't have some innate skill for business, he's good at acting meaning that he probably has a personality disorder or two...but let's stop (as a society, nobody on here in particular) acting like his thoughts on Anthropogenic Global Warming are profound....he's a giant hypocrite "Hey come to my 'Save the environment party'! It's on my private island.", "That's great Leo, but how do I get there?", "Oh I'll just send my private helicopter, it's picking up and dropping off all of the hundreds of guests"
Old Guard
Array
Re: Scientific Fraud
That clown is still around??
I would've thought he would've folded his tent by now and moved on to more fruitful endeavors.
Oh yeah and his endeavors are VERY fruitful.....it's the reason for his beliefs man, that is what I'm telling you
That clown is still around??
I would've thought he would've folded his tent by now and moved on to more fruitful endeavors.
Re: Scientific Fraud
Banned
Array
Re: Scientific Fraud
I think he has a point. The global population will expand by a billion more in another 9 years and our economic and social systems are at 'melting point' as it is. Leaving aside climate change, you have to factor in the scarcity of resources and how our neo liberal economic systems are creating more and more inequality. So, of those billion children who will have the children? I would hazard a guess and say it is mostly people of lower intelligence with less resources and into a world of growing inequality and fewer and fewer opportunities. Then you have to factor in technology and the loss of manufacturing, service and driving jobs to robots. There are not going to be many jobs available.
Unless we can radically transform how we organise our societies, then people should be having fewer children and in the West we are already seeing the consequences of saddling young people with an incredibly deranged and unjust system. They are simply not having sex and birth rates are dropping exponentially. In a world of progress and opportunity, people should and will have children, but in a system of central banks and war you end up with panda in a cage syndrome and people just want out. Who would want to perpetuate this system onto others? How cruel could one be? Man has shown no desire to evolve or adapt and the price will be felt long before we die. The pain should logically end with us.
This is a topic that I have thought about a lot over the years and I think the people quoted in the article have a point. I think to focus on climate change is limited as it is only one factor among several others. Humanity will not progress unless we change the financial system, the war machine and also start to respect our planet.
Did you know that more than 60% of all food is thrown away. That right there is an example of how our system just does not work. We have potential, but we literally throw it away.
Banned
Array
Re: Scientific Fraud
When it comes to heat, it has been the hottest summer since 1994. August is supposed to average out at 29'C for the maximum daily temperature, but it has been 33-35'C EVERY DAY this month and not a single day of rain. It is pretty exceptional. Not a degree or two above average, but about 5'C above. Now maybe it is a natural cycle, but it is far from normal. Is it any wonder I am currently so against ties?
Old Guard
Array
Re: Scientific Fraud
What do you call a person who doesn't have the first inkling about science, yet disputes claims made by professional scientists using "facts" mostly gleaned from non-scientific media sources (who also know little about science, in general), quotes from politicians (and we all know the average intelligence level of that crew, now don't we?), and anti-science propaganda sources?
This may or may not be a rhetorical question. It's been over a year (close to two? I've been busy...) since I challenged Lyle to do a basic, high school level regression analysis based on publicly available data. I don't think he understand linear regression (which is not hard), yet he certainly has a greater understanding of something as complex as climatology than world experts in the field.
That's like me getting on here and claiming that I know more about boxing than everyone in the Hall of Fame. It's a joke.
Yep, complex dynamical systems and the numerical and computational methods needed to analyze them are no problem for Lyle, especially since he avoids anything even vaguely resembling something of substance. Instead the response we typically get is a flood of questionable, clearly biased links to the types of sources mentioned earlier along with copious amounts of eye-rolling at the ignorance of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Not once has he provided anything even resembling a scientific counter-argument - that I would respect, and pay attention to. Instead, we get more propaganda and posturing.
Simple linear regression. The freshman in my college algebra classes can roll into class so hungover they don't know their name and still do a linear regression. My 2-year old can probably do one. My wife, who hates math, can do one. I can teach a freaking monkey to do one.
But Lyle, who understands climate science (and the systems of stochastic partial differential equations used in the models) better than Ph.D.s in the field, can't.
Hmm.
Seems legit.
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Scientific Fraud
It doesn't matter half of everything is fake and all of what you see is false. It's all moot
Honey...if Anthropogenic Climate Change was real the data wouldn't have to be fudged. Again it's been uncovered that the data IS fudged and here you are "you don't understand science!" How many times must that happen in order for you to understand?What do you call a person who doesn't have the first inkling about science, yet disputes claims made by professional scientists using "facts" mostly gleaned from non-scientific media sources (who also know little about science, in general), quotes from politicians (and we all know the average intelligence level of that crew, now don't we?), and anti-science propaganda sources?
This may or may not be a rhetorical question. It's been over a year (close to two? I've been busy...) since I challenged Lyle to do a basic, high school level regression analysis based on publicly available data. I don't think he understand linear regression (which is not hard), yet he certainly has a greater understanding of something as complex as climatology than world experts in the field.
That's like me getting on here and claiming that I know more about boxing than everyone in the Hall of Fame. It's a joke.
Yep, complex dynamical systems and the numerical and computational methods needed to analyze them are no problem for Lyle, especially since he avoids anything even vaguely resembling something of substance. Instead the response we typically get is a flood of questionable, clearly biased links to the types of sources mentioned earlier along with copious amounts of eye-rolling at the ignorance of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Not once has he provided anything even resembling a scientific counter-argument - that I would respect, and pay attention to. Instead, we get more propaganda and posturing.
Simple linear regression. The freshman in my college algebra classes can roll into class so hungover they don't know their name and still do a linear regression. My 2-year old can probably do one. My wife, who hates math, can do one. I can teach a freaking monkey to do one.
But Lyle, who understands climate science (and the systems of stochastic partial differential equations used in the models) better than Ph.D.s in the field, can't.
Hmm.
Seems legit.
But nah, ooooh hey WE humans made Hurricane Matthew ooooh scary, let's all bow to the great Climate God and repent for our sins.
Fuck right off
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
SCIENCE!
Bookmarks