Thank you for demonstrating my point! The debate has "been over" since the very beginning. You demonstrate very clearly your inability to understand basic scientific principals like dependent/independent variables, causality and correlation. Global warming supporters have NEVER wanted to have a debate - they run on CONDITIONING, ie pounding an idea into your head with a hammer until it fits. I see nothing scientific whatsoever demonstrating human activity is responsible. Peer review study is the golden standard of science. When you BAN the opposing viewpoints, or simply declare "the debate is over" you aren't having peer review. Its that simple. Science can defend itself, it doesn't need your help.
NO ONE has told me what is wrong with the most basic explanation of man made global warming. Do you not believe CO2 is being released by manmade processes? Do you think the fact that the sun's radiation is the same as the Earth after absorbing/reflecting/radiating ? Do you think CO2 absorbs/reflects all frequencies of radiation the same ? I ask this OVER and OVER. No one wants to explain to me where this falls apart. If anyone wants to see another lunatic, read the guy above.
Apparently global warming has some big mafia behind it. All those scientists etc, they're just wanting better jobs.. yea, thats the ticket ! 95%+ that we live in, now just decided to blow smoke up our ass because they need jobs and are controlled by corporations and can't think for themselves.
Ah this old chestnut. Human caused global warming policy supporters would NEVER make claims about a giant energy conglomerates conspiring to rob people of as many resources as possible would they?
You probably didn't notice in your nicely air conditioned home that there is a depression going on. This means less jobs, and a lot more pressure to "tow the line" and get whatever results daddy with the pocketbook wants so they can not only feed themselves but fund research they ACTUALLY want to do. Also don't forget massive student loan debt, and the fact that along with having an opposing viewpoint comes ejection from your job. Who is going to hire a research scientist that burns his sponsors? Scientists are humans subject to the same threats as anyone else, and you'd be surprised how little most of them make.
Also last I checked corporations are composed of inanimate objects and stacks of paperwork. It is a legal entity, so no corporations can't think for themselves. They rely on humans to run it, and humans certainly never cheat for lots of money, divert responsibility, or make mistakes now do they? I would like for you to explain to me how YOU personally aren't subject to corporations, and how scientists are some how exempt from this pressure.
I would love to see the source of your "95%+ of the guys who basically made the modern world" quote.
(note your ass is not an acceptable source)
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html 97% of 12,000 PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BEING MAN MADE. In your first paragraph you ranted on about no peer review. What on Earth are you talking about ? Do you live in a separate reality ? HELLLO BUUELLLER ? How mental are you people ? I knew it was 97%, but dropped it down to 95% just so I felt 100% confident. You can say the skeptics are kicked out of the peer review journals and so forth, but it'll never end. If you believe that, then you believe that the type of men who pretty much advanced us to the modern age are now in some huge conspiracy like they can't afford their academic lifestyles anymore. I could try and guess the "conspiracies" you guys will concoct if you actually bother to respond to this paragraph. It is a bit tiresome responding to lunacy, so I misspeak at times and lose my clarity. Guys publishing in peer reviewed journals by and large are not going to be that controlled by corporations assuming they're usually from academia. And if they are influenced by someone who has interest in denying manmade global warming, then thats why the papers are (supposedly) peer reviewed. Anyway, read your first paragraph then read the study I posted for you. Tell me your issue with that. I got ripped into using anecdotal evidence to respond to anecdotal evidence, but thats all I have seen from you guys. It is either that, or a graph that shows the earth's temperature cycles every 100k years. <eyeroll>. It is either too much data (comparing 400k climate change occurring after 100 year of industrial revolution) or just anecdotal. 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles... And he tells me there is not enough peer review. This is why reddit's subreddit booted you guys. |
|
|
|
Its pretty sad how people can't grasp the simple independence of global weather change and humans not necessarily being the cause. Correlation does not equal causation, and evidence of human responsibility for it is seriously lacking, full of fraud, or non-existent and based purely on emotion substituted for logic.
Every time someone makes it into a question of "are humans responsible?" it suddenly becomes a denial in their mind of any change of weather patterns, because it is JUST SO IMPORTANT AND IMMINENTLY THREATENING that we don't have time for debate (peer review), or even time to let anyone have a dissenting opinion. Have you ever considered the damage that might be created by ignoring the REAL NATURAL THREAT and wasting time and resources on a system that will make you less able to make choices for yourself, your family, and your country?
This is about one thing MONEY. You don't have to own oil fields to get rich off of global warming. All the reactionaries on the opposing polar opinion are more than happy to be dupes for the same people wearing a different shell corp. You are so sure of your conclusions you are willing to put everyone's life on the line without even an honest debate. Why aren't you supporting clean energy instead of raging about all the problems and destroying things you had no hand in building? The system doesn't need your help to destroy itself. It is obsolete and it will collapse under its own weight. Try actually doing something instead of just preaching about how humans are bad and need to be controlled more (as if we aren't already almost completely subjects anyway).
Bahhahahah, did you just wake up from a 20 year old nap ? "We don't have time for debate (peer review)" ?? HUH ? Bud, the debate and peer review on the basic truth of global warming has been done and is finished. That is why people were booted off Reddit subforum. People are now debating how to mitigate it and what sort of changes we are to expect. Look, the basic science behind man made global warming was established decades ago. Now we are seeing quite exceptional changes to the weather. Why didn't the polar icecaps melt at a recent time leading up to this ? The odds of global warming not being manmade are exceedingly small by this alone. Correlation is not everything, but in the right circumstances and with enough data it can actually make a strong argument that will always fall just shy of "proof". I love how people throw around cause and effect about something where cause and effect can not be directly demonstrated regardless. Therefore, by their logic it isn't true. <eyeroll> If anyone wants to see another lunatic, read the guy above. Apparently global warming has some big mafia behind it. All those scientists etc, they're just wanting better jobs.. yea, thats the ticket ! 95%+ of the guys who basically made the modern world that we live in, now just decided to blow smoke up our ass because they need jobs and are controlled by corporations and can't think for themselves. yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa buddy...... --- And Spendulus, of course I know what you mean. If you don't understand my response, then I would have to say that you don't understand my points. You guys want to use goofy logic all over the place, so I bring up analogies that show your logic in practice and you all at once disagree with the application of your own logic elsewhere. (When it doesn't validate your cognitive biases.) Of course, thats what you have to do when you're on the wrong side of the debate |
|
|
|
|
I saw a post elsewhere on here (not this thread) where a guy defended NXT's unfairness claiming that the unfair aspect paid for the success. I don't believe that is true. While NEM is not totally "fair" either, it definitely is a lot closer to being "fair". When people say NXT is unfair, they talk about the effort put forth into the initial distribution. Most people are not concerned with premines or anything else, just the fact there were either 20ish or 73 stakeholds, depending on who you believe. NEM will have at minimum 30x more stakeholders and likely 40-50x as many. Thats a huge edge.
Regardless, this poster's point was the allocation allowed NXT to become what it is. Utopian and Pat seem quite passionate about it and so I'm 100% happy for the devs to be in charge of 25-28%.
If I might make a suggestion, try to make the wallets compatible with bitcoind forks or at the very least compatible with NXT. I think the fact that NXT doesn't have multiple public keys hurts adoption. (I might be wrong though)
|
|
|
|
I am skeptical about bitshare economic model. I don't think the way they peg bitusd arbitrarily to $ could work in practice. Lending business is pretty difficult to do with bitcoin because of its deflation nature so i am interested so see if anyone can come up with a viable model.
Briefly why do you think it might not work? I have my own concern but just wondering what yours may be ? |
|
|
|
We should all be thankful for dwma as a reminder of the true spirit of a banned-free thread... I know you would ban me though  Keep on the good work. I am not for banning on most forums. I think this is the one issue that is important enough to be clearly distinct. Besides, you guys want debate, right ? Well... at least in name.. I don't think any of you guys want to truly debate anything. Did you watch the youtube video? I believe the host of that show had a very cognizant point. All "debates" show 1 guy vs 1 guy, when the debate is really more like 30 guys to 1. So anyone who isn't smart enough to cut through the bs, will see equal amounts of "evidence" on both sides in the interest of "fairness". The problem is, the "evidence" is not anywhere near equal on both sides. In neither quality or quantity The best you guys do as far as arguing is misrepresent what I say via selective quoting or refusing to actually try to understand anything I say. Instead you guys choose an obviously bullshit interpretation and try to ridicule me. It is understandable, I don't think the playbook of guys on the losing end of such a lopsided "debate" will have much else to go with. |
|
|
|
So I ask again, with all your knowledge of scientific rigor and logic, what would actually be "proof" that global warming is caused by man?...
... Not everything in science can be "proved" in the traditional sense...
...For instance if a flock of birds dies...
dude seriously such stunning arguments. tell the birds i say hi  the point being that there is no such proof. at all. Huh ? You say there is no proof, so I ask what would you consider to be "proof" ? You ask a question that can not be answered to your liking regardless of the answer, so why would anyone bother answering ? Just like no one can prove god does or does not exist. Enjoy your penny a post, probably one of the few jobs you can manage. |
|
|
|
My father farmed for 45 years, I spent 25 years on a farm. When you grow FOOD for a living, you rely on nature, you watch the weather, you learn the weather. The weather makes or fkn breaks you. If you cant get a crop in because its too cold in the spring, there isnt going to be a crop. It doesnt matter how hot it gets some days. Crops love the heat as long as they have water. The last 2 years there has been one extra month of winter. We also still raise leaf cutter bees, they work best in 75 and above temps. Leaf cutters have not done well the last 2 years. Go ahead and try some more of your fkn bullshit with this farmer!
I was ripped into for responding with anecdotal evidence. I am surprised no one has jumped on you here. Lol. (Biases !?!?!?) Go look at Texas and look see the weather patterns. It is a different story. Droughts don't help farmers. You're are 100% right though. "As long as there is water". So you plant a bit later. For now it appears northern latitude farmers will benefit from the changing weather patterns in global warming. You can adjust by planting a bit later, you can't adjust to lack of rainfall. A lot of the reason I respond here is to try to understand the cognitive biases of you looneys. I constantly see that you appeal to some random authority. Whether quoting books from the 1700s, claiming to be a professor, or claiming to be a farmer and thus more in tune with the weather. Again, no one has explained what is wrong with the basic science that explains man made global warming. Hellllllloooooo? |
|
|
|
So yeah, our brief lives don't tell us the big picture.
Yes, you could use this argument against any environmental issue. After all, what is the relevance of any issue, when the world has existing for 1,000,000 times longer than said issue ? Isn't that how your logic works ? Again, you are assuming the 100k cycle of ice ages is relevant to what is currently going on. It isn't in any meaningful sense. |
|
|
|
No progress and beta，Why!!!
You have never done software development, have you? It's ready when it's ready. I wish people who don't write code had no ability to complain about missed deadlines. Most people don't have the type of mind to code anything outside rudimentary programs (if that). Yet they want to think it is like whatever A,B,C work they do in real life. Known processes where you can estimate times. |
|
|
|
Those ice cores obviously didn't melt in the past 400k years or they wouldn't have the data. so at least there is some actual material to start studying before interpreting. Yet what is going on now is somehow supposed to be compared to that but nonsensical reasoning. maybe one day you'll get it, its called logic and scientific rigor. Man-made global warming has been predicted by basic science for decades. such assertion, much argument The fact that the polar ice is melting all over the place is exceptionally strong evidence. so it never melted that way before? If you think garbage disposal is a big problem, then I understand why you sell your posts for a $.01 or whatever PrimeDice pays you. my posts are still worth thousands of yours and you should definitely starts worrying about your s**t. So I ask again, with all your knowledge of scientific rigor and logic, what would actually be "proof" that global warming is caused by man? No matter what "proof" is presented it will be along the same lines as evolution. The lunatic fringe will consistently pick it apart and find the weakest of arguments to repeat ad nauseum to "prove" it isn't true. Not everything in science can be "proved" in the traditional sense. Your holding up a graph that shows climate cycles of 100k years is a prime example. It really has nothing to do with manmade global warming. For instance if a flock of birds dies. I say I suspect it is the poison lake that they're all sitting by dead. You would find evidence of birds dying off elsewhere as proof that it has happened before and therefore my theory is invalid. This is the type of logic you are working with. Fortunately people who don't post to make .01 a post use logic correctly and in a way that advances human thought. |
|
|
|
what rapid climate change? ice melting? so you are assuming it never melted before? At what rate is it considered to be rapid vs slow? how do you link it to human CO2 rejections? like i said, people should better start worrying about real short term environmental threats such as Fukushima or garbage disposal. not some loonie thesis that is unprovable. focus on facts first plz. edit: plus, if anything changing the climate.. it would be chemtrails.. and its called geoengineering.. Those ice cores obviously didn't melt in the past 400k years or they wouldn't have the data. Yet what is going on now is somehow supposed to be compared to that but nonsensical reasoning. Man-made global warming has been predicted by basic science for decades. The fact that the polar ice is melting all over the place is exceptionally strong evidence. If you think garbage disposal is a big problem, then I understand why you sell your posts for a $.01 or whatever PrimeDice pays you. |
|
|
|
But no, it does not DISPROVE that man has caused this current cycle. You can always say "well, even though this current cycle shows the same periodicity, THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT".
hmmokeee.. so what about scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such cycle? im not denying there is pollution. but that comes with the package of progress and demographic's exponential growth i guess... ^^ and i'd be much more concerned about things you can actually see such as the nuclear disaster happening in Fukushima, trash islands or massive deforestation... yet no one talks about em.. guess its just not profitable enough.. Yea, we should all be worried about all the garbage laying about. What would a "scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such a cycle" look like ? Answer - You wouldn't ever find anything acceptable. You want a level of proof that is not really possible in the domain. You're already assuming it is a cycle, thereby showing your biases. Oh yea! because we know cycles happen every 100000 years, therefore this rapid climate change we see is not likely caused by man. ROFL. Next you'll tell me you're a professor ! I'll have to admit, I've learned a lot of ignorant thought processes in this thread, so even for me it has been quite educational. |
|
|
|
wikipedia is one of the biggest piles of shit out there, Im not surprised your attracted to that site. You can change the information like they do at the IPCC to meet your needs. The purpose of the graph is to show you that humans arent responsible for spikes in temp and co2 because we werent here! What do you have to say about the IPCC getting caught faking data and colluding in emails. If there is any kind of threat, why would they have to do this? I bet you these scientist will gain from carbon taxes. Utter loony rubbish. Wikipedia has been repeatedly shown to be just as accurate as other sources of information. You don't understand how the editors etc on Wikipedia work. Seriously though, go google "wikipedia accuracy". No 1 source is perfect, not sure why you would have an issue with wikipedia. You sure as hell can't complain about reddit if you have issues with how wikipedia works. The fact that there have been spikes in the past 100s of thousands of years, has nothing to do with the subject of manmade global warming which is far far far far more rapid. Your point is nonsense. One does not follow from the other. I could explain with an analogy but the loony tunes around here still wouldn't get it. I have no opinion on IPCC. I remember something about this back when it happened, but it isn't particularly strong evidence that manmade global warming is no occurring. If you say so tho, bub. |
|
|
|
Has there been any discussion regarding the implementation of a Nem stabilization fund?
There was that multipool idea recently. I think That will do somekind of stabilisation by constant buy-support. I don't know if NEM-multipool is still under development. I hope it is. Looks like it's working great for NXT. Their multipool dip the price +50% in just a few days. Are we sure that's the multipool and not rather good news lately ? I'm pretty sure it isn't the multipool. Just go look at volumes. POS paying multipools are a good idea, but like most idea they just become diluted and less effective. If the coin doesn't have a strong community of miners, it is likely to not work so well. |
|
|
|
How dare you bring scientific facts to this discussion. Great, dwma's going to start calling you names now. Hes got nothing to debunk that. Ya right, he already proven to be full of shit!
ROFL. I just looked at that some more. So the point is that we are at a peak temperature in a 100,000 year cycle. I don't even see the relevance, except to show that yes the climate changes greatly in cycles that are literally off multiple orders of magnitude when compared to the effects of manmade global warming. Honestly, I don't even know what the point of that graph is in relationship to what we are discussing. I think it takes a special mentally ill brain full of weird biases that I can't understand because they're not based on logical thinking. You are talking about changes occurring over 100,000 year cycles, when everyone else is talking about something on a 100 year scale. The rate of change is not anywhere comparable except perhaps in direction... but it has to go in one of 2 directions, eh ? |
|
|
|
How dare you bring scientific facts to this discussion. Great, dwma's going to start calling you names now. Hes got nothing to debunk that. Ya right, he already proven to be full of shit!
His post is interesting but a graph does not make a fact. Do you seriously not understand that ? I was actually going to thank him for his post, because even though it may be bullshit, it may not be. Regardless it is a reference to evidence. That is the first I have seen that in here.
No one BEGINS to argue why the basic science behind global warming is false. NO ONE. Why is it so hard ?I like how a subreddit doesn't want to read the ravings of the lunatics, but the lunatics feel entitled to waste everyone's time. You do little but prove the necessity of said rules. As for the other loony tunes asking me how I've believed in global warming for 20 years. The answer is that I've believed in the underlying causes and science. Not everything has to be directly demonstrated to be believed. The same loony who claims to be a professor (yea, and he was on gilligan's island ! ROFL) wants to know logical fallacies... while everyone completely ignores my request for the fallacies in what we are discussing.... ie basic global warming. However, to start with in that post alone, you are appealing to your vague credentials in an unrelated argument. "I am a professor therefore... " that is a logical fallacy right there. Appeal to authority. I can pick apart the babbling nonsense from you guys all day, but really.. It is better to just go about it like Reddit. |
|
|
|
The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology. Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth. What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures. .....
Do meteorologists understand the weather? ....
When you can lay down on paper the theory of the Naviar Stokes equations, I'll be happy to talk with you about weather. In the meantime, you want a forum in which you can insult people you don't know. That's called the Internet. But so far you haven't shown much understanding of science. You really are not capable of defending the issues of "a global temperature average". Trust me on that. It is nothing against you, it is simply that complicated a matter. You can say "but the scientists say..." or something. You don't use basic logic. You start out your argument by some bullshit appeal to authority, over an argument we are not even having. My point about weather was nothing more than an analogy to the basic thought process of you guys. Again, you misrepresent what I say. That alone says a ton about where you are coming from. So why don't YOU explain to us why the basic reasoning behind greenhouse gases is not true ? Do you think that light emitted from the sun and the radiation emitted from the matter on the Earth to be the same frequency ? Do you think that all gases interact with all radiation the same way ? Where does the most basic science fail? If you are such a educated contrarian then you should at least be able to address this. PLEASE.I've actually believed in global warming for close to 20 years. That is because I believe the basic underlying science behind it, even if I have not empirically taken measurements myself. It's that you didn't know what I was saying. N/S is basic math underlying computations for weather. So it is the argument we were having, and it is the authority. And that's my thought process. Regarding your bolded section above, re emission is always at a lower frequency. All material have emission and spectral absorption patterns which have been carefully measured. Re "educated contrarian", I have no clue what you are talking about. Someone who does not profess to understand science of one sort or another should not be so very certain about it. And you have stated that you have "actually believed in global warming for 20 years". So for the last two decades in which the planet was not warming, you've believed it was?  Still in favor of Reddit banning open discussion of ideas?I would like to point out that you completely failed to address what is the basic fallacy in the explanation of global warming. Completely failed to address it. That is because your reasoning is not based on logic. You and Wilky are a walking text book of logical fallacies. You both are just ranting lunatics until you can point out precisely what is wrong with the basic explanation behind global warming. To further defend why I say what I say to 2 incompetent lunatics would make me to be a raving lunatic myself. Goodday PS one other thing. I'm pretty sure you can find a place on reddit to say what you wish. There is no reason people should have to read it, though. I'm sure this goes beyond you, but goodluck. I'm sure you'll find your voice over there. Just try /r/asylum . |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
