|
Guest
Deleted Post
« Sent to: Spendulus on: Today at 06:03:54 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Quote from: Viper1 on Today at 06:29:13 AM
Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.
Quite on the contrary, it would not bother me if people wished to continue discussing impeaching Trump, and all that Russian Collusion. After all, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Maybe this could become a permanent subject, like the enemy EurAsia in 1984?
Report To Admin
Bitcoin Forum
Guest
Deleted Post
« Sent to: Spendulus on: Today at 06:04:25 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Quote from: TwitchySeal on February 07, 2020, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: eddie13 on February 07, 2020, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: TwitchySeal on February 07, 2020, 02:26:14 PM
Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have. They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.
You mean like the "Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia" Scandal that was a flop
You mean the investigation that uncovered exactly how and who interfered in our election process, down to the bitcoin transactions and all of the different online identities the Russians used along with their real ones? 13 Russians, Trumps personal lawyer, his campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, National Security Advisor and a couple others that were part of his campaign were all indicted by grand juries and the Americans have either pled guilty or were found guilty by a jury of their peers.
How is that a flop?
The only reason anyone thinks it was a hoax or a scam is because Trump said so 10+ times a day for 2 years. But it actually wasn't all about Trump the way he made it seem. The investigation was into "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".
3 1/2 years of trying to get rid of Trump was what it was all about.
|
|
|
|
Deleted Post « Sent to: Spendulus on: February 04, 2020, 09:24:12 PM » Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Quote Quote from: TwitchySeal on February 04, 2020, 07:28:34 PM Flynn worked out a plea deal to *only* be charged with a single count of lying to the FBI. He was acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey, he discussed sanctions with Russia after he was named National Security Advisor but while Obama was still president, and then he lied about to the Vice President and the FBI. When he found out he was being investigated, he filed some FARA documents that also had lies in them. If he would've been charged with all the crimes he admitted to (under penalty of perjury) , he would be facing spending the rest of his life in prison. Defending him is like defending a guy who was speeding and drunk getting pulled over and let off with only a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/downloadQuote from: Spendulus on February 04, 2020, 05:08:31 PM How much do you understand about FBI standard operating procedure? Google "FBI entrapment" maybe add "drugs". OR if you still have problems understanding, go to Glocktalk.com, discussion forum for gun owners but mostly LEO, and ask the simple question, "Is entrapment a typical FBI technique." I am not seeing where you have a problem with me. You have a problem trying to thread a needle to get to some desirable conclusions, but that's no concern of mine. Quote from: Spendulus on February 04, 2020, 05:08:31 PM Why would your recitation of opinions be relevant? I'm gonna delete any posts that say stuff like this from now on to keep the thread from going to shit. Please stop. Quote from: Viper1 on February 04, 2020, 01:35:03 PM Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one. This works great. Install it and most sites with paywalls just work. https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chromehttps://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefoxGreat. What's next? Trump's been Impeached. What's next? Twitch recommends cheating the Wall Street Journal So what's next? Flynn gets off. What else is next? Trump-Hate-a-GoGo. State of the Union. The babies cry about their Trump-hate. Formal vote on "impeachment." More Trump-hate. Highest rating ever for Trump. The reeking stink of the Trump-haters. What else is next? |
|
|
|
This is instant chaos! Do you think there's any other reason why china experiencing this? Just like Bioterrorism?  For one reason, Chinese traditionally don't go see Western doctors. True even for modern well educated Chinese. They'll wait until they're half dead to go to the doc. Does not work too well with the Coronavirus. |
|
|
|
Because the LIA is a term used to refer to an approximate 500 year long section of history, its wrong to conceptualize single "causes." 500 years is a long time. For a first approximation one needs to look at history. Might as well start with Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Agehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_SummerThen note that attempting to guess at something like the exact temperature changes during that period is a bit too broad of an approach. There was not a 500 year period of famine, there were numerous years or decades during that period which are noted to be famine. So if you look at temperature changes even over 50 year averaging (0.6 - 1.5C) , that may average out the temperature changes that induced crop failures and which killed 10% of a population. Hence it's wise to simply note the existence of the extreme years (if you like, consider that to be an increase in extreme climate relative to the average. ). Arguments such as "LIA caused by changing ocean" blah blah blah. "Changing ocean currents" is an argument used that's rather nonsensical but also in the category of a logical error "irrefutable hypothesis." Science looks at the provable. Arguments such as "LIA caused by volcanoes" are silly. Volcanoes ALWAYS lay a couple years of cooling on top of then existent climate. (so called secular curve or average underlying trend). Something like 50 year averaging has use, though if one wanted to derive factors for atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 or for TSI impact or lack of on climate. Obviously, people may try to see how the dramatically colder years of the LIA correspond with the 11 year solar cycle, or with volcanoes, etc. The summary of all that, rather than attempting to look at a question such as "How much colder was it" and conclude xyz degrees C, it's wiser to look at "To what extent was it cold enough to disrupt our live and kill people." The LIA did a very thorough job of the latter. |
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.
Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo. Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid. I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article. Deal with it. You'll notice in the OP, complaining about climate change deniers banned from r/science also posted a link to a tabloid. Climate change deniers, anti vaxers and conspiracy theorists in general have a tendency to read lots of tabloids, and use them to 'prove' whatever hypothesis they have that is in conflict with something that the scientific community has come to a consensus on after decades of research being scrutinized. Don't fall for the sensationalized, easy to read tabloids, and then look for specific facts just to back up what the tabloid convinced you is true. Try looking at things more objectively, try to disprove your own theories without looking at it as a personal loss if you were wrong, or a victory to be right. It doesn't work for you to make up things like that. I have advanced degrees and studies, have no difficulty in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and am quite happy to discuss it on it's merits. Apparently you are not. You'd like to denigrate ideas because they found their way into popular mass media publications. But only of course, if they were contrary to your personal beliefs. Enough of your dodging and ducking the subject. Either directly discuss the physics and statistics of solar phenomena or move on to another subject. I don't have time for your nonsense. Lets start with this one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecastHave you checked any of these out yet? I'm not seeing anything research suggesting that the solar minimum that we're entering will cause cooling more than fraction a degree in cooling (between 0.06 and 0.1 K), and it will be temporary. First, I think we can agree that the truly huge changes occurring during the last GSM (Grand Solar Minimum) warrant careful consideration of the implications of such an event today. The question is not the effect of a SM, but a GSM. And history of the last GSM simply negates your argument that such cooling would be trivial. I meant Grand Solar Minimum. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K I agree with the thrust of the article, " In the years following previous grand maxima, solar activity sometimes dropped to very low “grand minimum” levels, with a 8% chance that within 40 years of the end of the current high activity level that the Sun will be in similar state to that during the Maunder Minimum [Lockwood, 2010]. However, there is a 50% probability that this will occur in the next 100–200 years.
"
However it is 2012 and is obsolete, because it examines the impact and change of TSI, and not the other aspects of space weather that affect climate, as shown by the CLOUD experiments of CERN. In 2012, although it was known that solar effects were nowhere near explained strictly by TSI, it was a mystery as to what the other effects might be. Here is a study and some discussion of this issue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmIt's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Your are attempting to indicate that a GS minimum is not a big deal... Lockwood DID NOT SAY THAT! And in making that argument you are seriously going against a historical record. Are you really that much of a True Believer in global warming or what, because that makes no sense. Of course, you could argue that future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. But you have not done that (and there are issues with that approach). Could you provide sources for your calculations. A lot of what you just said is in direct conflict with the paper. I don't think an 8 year old study like this is obsolete, but there are plenty of others published more recently. Feel free to cite any of them. Let's stick to peer reviewed scientific journals though. ?? You want sources now for 8th grade algebra? It does not matter what "you think." 8 years is before CERN Cloud results. And Lockwell himself talks about uncertainty due to those issues in the paper you cite. Nothing I said should be in conflict with Lockwell 2012.  By the way, earlier in another thread you asked/wanted to argue about "FBI entrapment" as related to Flynn. You are now entrapped, similarly. It all looked so innocent at the start, and like such a simple issue. But now it's a quagmire, and worse, it is a subject matter that you know little about, and are vainly trying to maintain with google. And the guy you are talking about actually does know this stuff. That's what's called "Full Disclosure." That's only fair to say that. That's essentially what would have been fair with Flynn. I'm not asking for sources on how to do math. Where are you getting the formulas involving the solar irradiance? Simple question. I assume you refer to these. These are mad ramblings of a clear mind. LIA = estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). (Historical) Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Derivation of scaler to match actual historical T with calculated TSI future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. Should be obvious where this comes from. Total morons argue this. Now let's get back to what your are doing. Yet one more time, you've created a BS process argument. Go back and read your early Lockwood again, and ask some intelligent question. But instead you ask where does this equation come from, that article is not a real science thing, blah blah blah. Either ask intelligent questions, or my responses to you on this subject stop. |
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.
Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo. Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid. I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article. Deal with it. You'll notice in the OP, complaining about climate change deniers banned from r/science also posted a link to a tabloid. Climate change deniers, anti vaxers and conspiracy theorists in general have a tendency to read lots of tabloids, and use them to 'prove' whatever hypothesis they have that is in conflict with something that the scientific community has come to a consensus on after decades of research being scrutinized. Don't fall for the sensationalized, easy to read tabloids, and then look for specific facts just to back up what the tabloid convinced you is true. Try looking at things more objectively, try to disprove your own theories without looking at it as a personal loss if you were wrong, or a victory to be right. It doesn't work for you to make up things like that. I have advanced degrees and studies, have no difficulty in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and am quite happy to discuss it on it's merits. Apparently you are not. You'd like to denigrate ideas because they found their way into popular mass media publications. But only of course, if they were contrary to your personal beliefs. Enough of your dodging and ducking the subject. Either directly discuss the physics and statistics of solar phenomena or move on to another subject. I don't have time for your nonsense. Lets start with this one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecastHave you checked any of these out yet? I'm not seeing anything research suggesting that the solar minimum that we're entering will cause cooling more than fraction a degree in cooling (between 0.06 and 0.1 K), and it will be temporary. First, I think we can agree that the truly huge changes occurring during the last GSM (Grand Solar Minimum) warrant careful consideration of the implications of such an event today. The question is not the effect of a SM, but a GSM. And history of the last GSM simply negates your argument that such cooling would be trivial. I meant Grand Solar Minimum. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K I agree with the thrust of the article, " In the years following previous grand maxima, solar activity sometimes dropped to very low “grand minimum” levels, with a 8% chance that within 40 years of the end of the current high activity level that the Sun will be in similar state to that during the Maunder Minimum [Lockwood, 2010]. However, there is a 50% probability that this will occur in the next 100–200 years.
"
However it is 2012 and is obsolete, because it examines the impact and change of TSI, and not the other aspects of space weather that affect climate, as shown by the CLOUD experiments of CERN. In 2012, although it was known that solar effects were nowhere near explained strictly by TSI, it was a mystery as to what the other effects might be. Here is a study and some discussion of this issue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmIt's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Your are attempting to indicate that a GS minimum is not a big deal... Lockwood DID NOT SAY THAT! And in making that argument you are seriously going against a historical record. Are you really that much of a True Believer in global warming or what, because that makes no sense. Of course, you could argue that future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. But you have not done that (and there are issues with that approach). Could you provide sources for your calculations. A lot of what you just said is in direct conflict with the paper. I don't think an 8 year old study like this is obsolete, but there are plenty of others published more recently. Feel free to cite any of them. Let's stick to peer reviewed scientific journals though. ?? You want sources now for 8th grade algebra? It does not matter what "you think." 8 years is before CERN Cloud results. And Lockwell himself talks about uncertainty due to those issues in the paper you cite. Nothing I said should be in conflict with Lockwell 2012. By the way, earlier in another thread you asked/wanted to argue about "FBI entrapment" as related to Flynn. You are now entrapped, similarly. It all looked so innocent at the start, and like such a simple issue. But now it's a quagmire, and worse, it is a subject matter that you know little about, and are vainly trying to maintain with google. And the guy you are talking with (me) actually does know this stuff. That's what's called "Full Disclosure." That's only fair to say that. That's essentially what would have been fair with Flynn. |
|
|
|
....
3 1/2 years of trying to get rid of Trump was what it was all about.
I know that's what Trump said it was about, but it really wasn't. It was about Russian interference in the election. There were suspicious links between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials that were investigated as part of that, and the final report had a big section on all the ways Trump tried to stop or interfere with the investigation, but it actually was not 'all about trump'. You should read it. Just check out the introduction and Executive Summary of part 1 if you don't believe me. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfIt's what I'm saying, and what about two thirds the population believe. Half because they're for Trump and have seen this going on for 3 1/2 years, and 1/6 because they have been engineering this nonsense from the beginning, and publicly said so. It's all been right out in the open. |
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.
Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo. Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid. I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article. Deal with it. You'll notice in the OP, complaining about climate change deniers banned from r/science also posted a link to a tabloid. Climate change deniers, anti vaxers and conspiracy theorists in general have a tendency to read lots of tabloids, and use them to 'prove' whatever hypothesis they have that is in conflict with something that the scientific community has come to a consensus on after decades of research being scrutinized. Don't fall for the sensationalized, easy to read tabloids, and then look for specific facts just to back up what the tabloid convinced you is true. Try looking at things more objectively, try to disprove your own theories without looking at it as a personal loss if you were wrong, or a victory to be right. It doesn't work for you to make up things like that. I have advanced degrees and studies, have no difficulty in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and am quite happy to discuss it on it's merits. Apparently you are not. You'd like to denigrate ideas because they found their way into popular mass media publications. But only of course, if they were contrary to your personal beliefs. Enough of your dodging and ducking the subject. Either directly discuss the physics and statistics of solar phenomena or move on to another subject. I don't have time for your nonsense. Lets start with this one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecastHave you checked any of these out yet? I'm not seeing anything research suggesting that the solar minimum that we're entering will cause cooling more than fraction a degree in cooling (between 0.06 and 0.1 K), and it will be temporary. First, I think we can agree that the truly huge changes occurring during the last GSM (Grand Solar Minimum) warrant careful consideration of the implications of such an event today. The question is not the effect of a SM, but a GSM. And history of the last GSM simply negates your argument that such cooling would be trivial. I meant Grand Solar Minimum. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K I agree with the thrust of the article, " In the years following previous grand maxima, solar activity sometimes dropped to very low “grand minimum” levels, with a 8% chance that within 40 years of the end of the current high activity level that the Sun will be in similar state to that during the Maunder Minimum [Lockwood, 2010]. However, there is a 50% probability that this will occur in the next 100–200 years.
"
However it is 2012 and is obsolete, because it examines the impact and change of TSI, and not the other aspects of space weather that affect climate, as shown by the CLOUD experiments of CERN. In 2012, although it was known that solar effects were nowhere near explained strictly by TSI, it was a mystery as to what the other effects might be. Here is a study and some discussion of this issue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmIt's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Your are attempting to indicate that a GS minimum is not a big deal... Lockwood DID NOT SAY THAT! And in making that argument you are seriously going against a historical record. Are you really that much of a True Believer in global warming or what, because that makes no sense. Of course, you could argue that future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. But you have not done that (and there are issues with that approach). |
|
|
|
...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.
I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.
Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist? He explained exactly why he voted the way he did. I've already posted the video and transcript... .... I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious." Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have. They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_RussiaI don't see how voting to remove someone you believe is abusing their power to win an election makes you authoritarian. Quite the opposite in fact. Are you calling him 'liberal' as in it's just an insult you use, or do you actually think he is actually not a conservative? He's never been a conservative. Although you could conjecture that his stands are the result of a political trying to give something to voters of all persuasions. But why do you want to keep talking about him? He is done, over with. I hear the Utah house is close to censoring him for that little display in Wash. DC. The story isn't over, but it's over as far as any nation wide relevance or impact. |
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.
Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo. Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid. I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article. Deal with it. You'll notice in the OP, complaining about climate change deniers banned from r/science also posted a link to a tabloid. Climate change deniers, anti vaxers and conspiracy theorists in general have a tendency to read lots of tabloids, and use them to 'prove' whatever hypothesis they have that is in conflict with something that the scientific community has come to a consensus on after decades of research being scrutinized. Don't fall for the sensationalized, easy to read tabloids, and then look for specific facts just to back up what the tabloid convinced you is true. Try looking at things more objectively, try to disprove your own theories without looking at it as a personal loss if you were wrong, or a victory to be right. It doesn't work for you to make up things like that. I have advanced degrees and studies, have no difficulty in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and am quite happy to discuss it on it's merits. Apparently you are not. You'd like to denigrate ideas because they found their way into popular mass media publications. But only of course, if they were contrary to your personal beliefs. Enough of your dodging and ducking the subject. Either directly discuss the physics and statistics of solar phenomena or move on to another subject. I don't have time for your nonsense. Lets start with this one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecastHave you checked any of these out yet? I'm not seeing anything research suggesting that the solar minimum that we're entering will cause cooling more than fraction a degree in cooling (between 0.06 and 0.1 K), and it will be temporary. First, I think we can agree that the truly huge changes occurring during the last GSM (Grand Solar Minimum) warrant careful consideration of the implications of such an event today. The question is not the effect of a SM, but a GSM. And history of the last GSM simply negates your argument that such cooling would be trivial. |
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.
Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo. Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid. I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article. Deal with it. You'll notice in the OP, complaining about climate change deniers banned from r/science also posted a link to a tabloid. Climate change deniers, anti vaxers and conspiracy theorists in general have a tendency to read lots of tabloids, and use them to 'prove' whatever hypothesis they have that is in conflict with something that the scientific community has come to a consensus on after decades of research being scrutinized. Don't fall for the sensationalized, easy to read tabloids, and then look for specific facts just to back up what the tabloid convinced you is true. Try looking at things more objectively, try to disprove your own theories without looking at it as a personal loss if you were wrong, or a victory to be right. It doesn't work for you to make up things like that. I have advanced degrees and studies, have no difficulty in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and am quite happy to discuss it on it's merits. Apparently you are not. You'd like to denigrate ideas because they found their way into popular mass media publications. But only of course, if they were contrary to your personal beliefs. Enough of your dodging and ducking the subject. Either directly discuss the physics and statistics of solar phenomena or move on to another subject. I don't have time for your nonsense. |
|
|
|
...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.
I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.
Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist? He explained exactly why he voted the way he did. I've already posted the video and transcript... .... I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious." |
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.
Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo. Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid. I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.
I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.
Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist? |
|
|
|
I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody. If you believe he was being genuine, then he was putting his Oath and his faith over his loyalty to the republican party. Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None.
I'm not sure where you're getting all this. Voting to convict Trump didn't go against any conservative values, and assuming he doesn't resign or die, he'll be a US Senator until at least 2025 (which would also be the end of Trumps second term), which is a pretty important duty imo. Thanks for your stand up defense of the guy. Of course, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said he was true to SELF. Then to determine if he did good, you have to look into what SELF is. Also, for info on Romney, I'll rely on my Mormon friends. Meanwhile, Pelosi really looks bad today, sort of incoherent rambling. What do you think? Her long, heroic struggle is wearing her down? I wouldn't be surprised if she resigns after the mess she's created. And I hear Burisma's hiring. |
|
|
|
....
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?
....
What I chose to present to you may not be my sources. News articles are fine. But certainly, scientific sources must be available. My life is fine. How is yours going now that your Serious Discussion has came to an end? You're misquoting me. I didn't say that, I do my best to avoid making personal attacks even when I am personally attacked. Really? So you think a Carrington event would be some minor, unimportant thing? No. I didn't say that. Okay, good. Because it would result in mass starvation such as the world has never experienced. Well, check out the FEMA report. It's quite interesting. I have many other references. It's important to cross check them critically. So let's go back to the issue of Global Cooling. What do you think the relative death count would be, for a period of serious global cooling versus the same period of global warming? Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references. Unless the actual science does not support the concepts pushing in the popular media. Wait, that's exactly the case with Alarmist Climate Hysterical articles, isn't it? How about that. |
|
|
|
...
fuck off, greenland is a sovereign country, with an own population doing its own decisions.
better you simply put the democrats into their own sanktuary city and flood them with gangbanger migrants.
so they enjoy what they want for everybody else.
Good point. I apologize for insulting the honorable people of Greenland by suggesting we relocate our undesirables there. No problem; as you note, they can be herded into their own cities. But maybe some of those can be walled off, and sold to North Korea or Cuba? |
|
|
|
....
If I'm not mistaken, this act of the House Speaker was unprecedented ,which lacks proper decorum and statemanship not expected from these honored and distinguished individuals.
That's correct. For example, a person's title is related to their OFFICE. We may say, "Your honor," when the individual is a completely uthonorable person. We show respect to the office. Similarly, the SOU is a formal occasion, and the occasion deserves respect. |
|
|
|
Genuine to himself.
Exactly. A higher loyalty. I am not sure about this. Romney has floped on a fairly high number of issues over the years. I would also point out that Romney tried to get a job in the Trump administration, and accepted Trump's endorsement for his Senate campaign. Romney's vote to convict did not do anything except harm the country, and harm Trump. It probably also ended his political career, at least as a Republican. I would say the same thing about Romney's vote for additional witnesses. The only thing additional witnesses had the potential to do is harm Trump, and if Romney did not have enough information to make a decision, he should not have voted to convict, he should have abstained from voting. I believe that he was being sincere. .... I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody. Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None. After the 3 1/2 years of juvenile nonsense the nation endured with the Democrats and Romney Trump-hate, taking the House back and re electing Donald Trump is not sufficient payback. THIS would even things out a bit. The first female president? https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/05/16/dont-laugh-at-ivanka-2024/By the time Ivanka's eight years are up in 2032, AI will be sufficiently advanced we'll have Trump-AIs born and running in the USA. And they'll run for POTUS. (No Russian produced Trump AIs will be allowed of course. No offense to our Russian friends, but the Constitution requires a POTUS to be a natural born citizen). The primary should be something to see, with a dozen Baron, Ivanka and Donald AI units battling it out. (Pelosi-Bots will be busy in the corner, neurotically ripping up papers) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
