Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context. Quote from: jaysabi on July 17, 2015, 07:35:17 PM When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-saysInterestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_datasetIt seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes. Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_modelsFor some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere. So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence. So the arguments for "NO" are (1) proxy vs direct temperature readings and (2) 1998 corrections to the orbital instrument readings?
Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming. That is the way I phrased the question. "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever. One other thing I noticed in the findings is that they use the phrase 'no statistically significant warming' or something to that effect. That leaves open the possibility that they observed some warming but that the statistical model they're using has caused them to conclude it falls within a negligible range. It's another area for inaccuracy or inference of data to arise. I wonder how small a change has to be or how large it can be to be "statistically insignificant." Um, I would have to say "don't be concerned about that." Because all measured datasets have bounds of error, so stating the statistical significance really is the only way to do it. But another way to look at it is simply, yeah, how is this done? Motl explains it here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/That's first semester statistics, applied to the satellite data - in 2009.... This goes into exhaustive detail... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/Dr. Judith Curry has a solid reputation as never backing down from where ever the scientific facts lead her. http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/Short story, I'm comfortable with the phrasing as used in the poll question. Fair enough. The first link answered my question well. |
|
|
|
I believe everyone should be loved, and forgiven, because we are all human. Think about it. The topic we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with forgiveness or which species we are. Think about it. No, the topic I've always been discussing in this thread was your hypocrisy. The words you wrote, that I have quoted twice in this thread show your disdain and hate, instead of love towards your fellow humans in this world. This quote also shows disdain: While religion only provides insight about one's own anus.
Yet, you would be upset with others for having the same disdain and hate of homosexuals that you have for those religious people. This is truly hypocritical, and not tolerant behavior. But I guess you knew that, since you never said you weren't a hypocrite. If you want to belittle the people for hating, belittle the hypocrites not the Christians. Oh, you're one of the good Christians who supports equal rights and protections under the law for homosexuals, transgender folk, and the polyamorous, than? Not one of the bigoted hateful hypocrites? This is supposed to be the land of the free. I do, however, not support the ones who want to take away the priest's right to not marry a homosexual couple ( As they can be married elsewhere, this does not harm them.). Is that even a debate topic, or just the thing you believe because you're afraid of gays marrying? I haven't seen anyone proposing to force priests to marry a homosexual couple. Your bigotry and intolerance is between you and your god, and government can't force your religious leaders to perform a religious ceremony they don't want to. If there are fellow Christians pushing for priests to marry gay couples, that's also a topic to be resolved within your religion and the arbitrary rules your religion has designed. That was from a previous thread, where a study showed 1 out of 5 Americans believed priests should be forced to perform something they thought was a sin. You quoted something from a conversation between Beliathon and me, and he knew what I was talking about. I never meant it to be anything against this thread as a whole. And I certainly couldn't care less if (and certainly am not afraid of) homosexuals wanting to marry, more power to them for committing to one person to love for life. It seems then I didn't have the proper context. I think any rational person would agree that externally forcing changes on religion is pointless. Religious rules may be arbitrary, but any change has to come from within if it is to be viewed as legitimate. The splintering of religious groups throughout history is precipitated by great internal disagreements about what the rules of the religion should be. When these disagreements reach a critical mass, one group just decides to call themselves something else and adopt the changes they want while still adhering to the other tenets of the faith. I don't find the 1/5 statistic to be inconsistent with this process without further context. |
|
|
|
Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!
Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not. |
|
|
|
Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context. Quote from: jaysabi on July 17, 2015, 07:35:17 PM When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-saysInterestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_datasetIt seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes. Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_modelsFor some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere. So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence. So the arguments for "NO" are (1) proxy vs direct temperature readings and (2) 1998 corrections to the orbital instrument readings?
Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming. That is the way I phrased the question. "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever. One other thing I noticed in the findings is that they use the phrase 'no statistically significant warming' or something to that effect. That leaves open the possibility that they observed some warming but that the statistical model they're using has caused them to conclude it falls within a negligible range. It's another area for inaccuracy or inference of data to arise. I wonder how small a change has to be or how large it can be to be "statistically insignificant." |
|
|
|
I was confused by the title, and reading the thread has not helped any. Isis's what now? They will never have a good image, so why do they bother?
The thread is essentially about irony. ISIS is a group that brutally murders people on video, then proudly puts those videos on the Internet. Now their leader has banned showing the murders in the videos because it makes them look barbaric to other Muslims, who are concerned that their children might see the brutality, not that they would support a group that is so brutal in the first place. Bottom line is that ISIS thinks by no longer showing the murders in the video, they can improve their image. The irony of a group that proudly commits such atrocities being worried about how that makes them look is amusing to me, as far as anything on this topic can be amusing. |
|
|
|
It was effective at getting the worlds attention but no long needed to grow their cause. Those that want to can splinter but stay loyal and that would attract more moderate types to the cause. End of the day they need as many hands on deck as they can get to spread this movement.
The moderate extremist. That sounds like an SNL character! |
|
|
|
If you want to belittle the people for hating, belittle the hypocrites not the Christians. Oh, you're one of the good Christians who supports equal rights and protections under the law for homosexuals, transgender folk, and the polyamorous, than? Not one of the bigoted hateful hypocrites? This is supposed to be the land of the free. I do, however, not support the ones who want to take away the priest's right to not marry a homosexual couple ( As they can be married elsewhere, this does not harm them.). Is that even a debate topic, or just the thing you believe because you're afraid of gays marrying? I haven't seen anyone proposing to force priests to marry a homosexual couple. Your bigotry and intolerance is between you and your god, and government can't force your religious leaders to perform a religious ceremony they don't want to. If there are fellow Christians pushing for priests to marry gay couples, that's also a topic to be resolved within your religion and the arbitrary rules your religion has designed. |
|
|
|
ISIS bans execution videos because of image backlash? ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has banned any more execution videos by the Islamic State, but the orders reportedly have created a division with the organization's ranks. ARA News reported that, according to sources, al-Baghdadi was responding to the feelings of Muslims who regarded the videos as "disgusting and scary to children." ... "Some of IS militants supported Baghdadi's decision, taking into consideration criticism of the public that describes scenes of beheadings as barbaric," wrote ARA News' Jan Nasro. "While other militants rejected the decision saying that such scenes are meant to intimidate their enemies, represented by western powers, and not the common folk." According to the website Middle East Eye.net, a number of Arabic-language news agencies said on Friday that Baghdadi explained his decision in a statement delivered to media offices in Syria and Iraq. The website said Baghdadi ordered that his followers don't include scenes of the actual executions in their videos and limit them to moments before or after the act. Full Article: http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-execution-videos-isis/2015/07/20/id/657960/Sounds like banning the execution part of the videos is to prevent eroding popular support. Cuz what would they be if they lost that? |
|
|
|
He's making a valid point on a reframing of the argument to suit the point he wishes to make. The fundamental question was and is:
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
My original point was, and still is, that there is no moral superiority in forcing castration on a man instead of killing him. My point disclaims the moral superiority you claimed in your original post. And my point is YOU'VE GOT THE BENEFIT OF A COMPUTER to project whatever your point of view is, and if Turing had been in Islamic country, you would be, effectively, totally shut up because you'd have no computer. Turing had NOTHING to do with SJW or gay rights or any crap like that. Think advances in pure math. That's hardly provable for one, and irrelevant to my point for two. If Turing didn't exist, computers may never have been invented. Or they may still have been invented. Turing was hardly the only mathematician working in the field, and while certain individuals may be instrumental (or "most important") in these highly collaborative fields, it does not prove that without them everything that exists today would not. The Manhattan Project is perhaps an apt analogy: thousands of people working on it, Oppenheimer is the "father" of the bomb, but there is no reason to think that without him, we wouldn't have nuclear weapons today. We most likely would. Turing is the same, the leader in a highly collaborative field of computer science. But even if we just accept the logical fallacy, it doesn't offer any value to the question of moral standing of the Brits who castrated him. Computers existing is not proof that Britain was morally superior for brutalizing him but stopping short of actually murdering him. I take the position that any society that would go so far to brutally suppress someone has no moral standing on the issue whatsoever. It's possible to have no moral standing and there yet be more brutal actions you could have taken, but there's no moral redemption for being slightly less brutal. And Turing's case is even more remarkable because he was an undisputed war hero. Surely if there was someone to be exempted from prosecution, it would be a war hero. The fact that he was not underscores my point on moral standing. |
|
|
|
I'm making a valid point as a humanist. I'm not sure what your motivation is in obfuscation.
I am giving you the right to ask away. Why aren't you happy about me giving you permission to express yourself? Obfuscation? Nope.  Your premises are flawed (almost certainly intentionally) so can only be regarded as obfuscation since you're no longer contributing anything relevant to what lead you on this tangent. I am not the one defending the rights of gays under sharia law... I am just saying they have none. I never said it was cool what happened to turing. I am saying he does not exist under sharia law. I told you not to trust my answer and ask muslims here in this thread. You are afraid to ask, saying it is irrelevant to have the opinion of people with the knowledge of sharia law. I know enough that I do not know enough so to feel superior to believe I am talking in the name of all muslims here, not needing a direct answer from them... I agree they have none. Turing may have been killed instantly under Sharia Law. Or they may have used his skills to aid their war effort and then killed him after, the way Britain used his skills to help the war effort and then castrated him after they were done with him. The reason I'm not asking Muslims is because it's not relevant to my point. I concede he may have been murdered under Sharia Law, and that doesn't affect my point that Britain has no standing to claim moral superiority for castrating him for being gay. |
|
|
|
believe in science How the hell do you "believe" in science? Do you believe that 2+2=4? I thought it could be tested, guess I was wrong... By that I would be meaning, believing in science in the same way someone believes in a religion, such as taking things as faith, instead of testing them personally. Sorry, I should have clarified that, I will edit now. Saw this point and just wanted to elucidate: Your point that faith in science and faith in religion have parallels may be true, but with one major difference in that science deals in things that are objectively and demonstrably true and verifiable, whereas religion is based entirely on things that are not. I wouldn't characterize these types of faiths as being the same, as faith in things that can be proven doesn't seem like faith to me at all. Faith in the principles of science may be closer, but still, that's based on a history of producing results and doesn't seem very faith-like in the religious sense. |
|
|
|
I've spoken up in other threads, that I think debate is great. You learn something new everyday. Though most laugh at this immediately, I find the debates going on fascinating.
There comes a time when debate is pointless. The Earth is not flat. Debate on the topic is not great, it's evidence of either stupidity, trolling, or subversion for personal gain (money, attention, notoriety; whatever your currency of choice). There are certain topics where I wouldn't characterize debate as "great", and this is one of them. Not to say people aren't free to be stupid, but celebrating it is going too far. |
|
|
|
Lol, what the heck, dude. One paragraph...
The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.
... vs. other paragraph Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. You're not even trying anymore. Go lay down or something. electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action free will = illusion = reaction For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION. Reaction opposite action. Illusion opposite reality. Free will opposite brain activity. Let's see if we can clear this up concisely. For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood. Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:- Electrons
- Electrolytes
- Chemicals
- Reality
- Illusion
- Free will
Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite. Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy. |
|
|
|
Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.
When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations. What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science? Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do. No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author. This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work. The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire. Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice. What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh. Here's perfect example of you taking something scientific and just making stuff up without having the slightest understanding of what you're talking about. The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.
Folks like you are so good at taking peoples' focus off the point. But people are learning. First, yes Newton's Third Law does state exactly what the reaction is. See if you can keep up here: it is equal and opposite. Now, look at this in a little more detail. The actions are made up of real activity - brain chemicals, electrons, etc., doing their job. The opposite reaction is therefore, not real. If it were real, it would not be an opposite reaction. The free will equal reaction is an illusion. Newton's Third Law describes the interaction for force pairs, Did you get your own words? "Forced pairs." In other words, action and reaction, cause and effect. and the specific, exact reaction is stated as equal and opposite. With regard to neurons firing and brain activity in general, there are countless, hundreds of thousands of actions and causes. Each one works with others to produce the outcome - the reactions, the effects - the illusion of free will. Why is it an illusion? Because it feels free, but is actually actions and reactions, causes and effects, producing the appearance of free will. Second, his law doesn't prove that there are no random actions. Even if you want to argue semantics on this, the point can be conceded without consequence, because doing so certainly doesn't have any application to your conclusion: everything is pre-programmed. Everything certainly is not. If you want to argue it is, you'll need something that actually supports the conclusion. Newton's Third Law isn't it. All you have said here is "No, no no." Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. These are universal. There is no evidence of anything other than action and reaction, cause and effect. Random suggests effect without cause. But there is no evidence of such. The Great First Cause is the One Who got the whole cause and effect thing going. Nobody has substantive evidence to the opposite... the opposite that suggests that there is anything random happening. All is cause and effect.
Third, Newton's Third Law has nothing to do with neurons firing.
Every action has to do with Newton's Third Law, because there is no action outside of the fact that there was something that caused it. This means that even the firing of neurons was caused by something or many somethings. Fourth, you still do not understand how neurons work. And neither do you. If you did, you would already know about how God interacts with cause and effect without being affected by either cause or effect. The moral of the story here is please don't try to science without proper adult supervision. You're not mentally equipped for it.
The moral of the story is that I am not equipped to satisfactorily deal with jokers, like you, who think that they are using science, but then have no real answer or ability to make the answer plain to people. See if the simple neurons firing in your brain can comprehend: Newton's Third Law describes the interaction of force pairs. Force-pairs; one thing, a closed system. Not "forced pairs." The law describes physical reactions in a closed system. As this applies to neurons, you might say that a neuron firing does so with a measurable force. If this is true, then that force has an equal and opposite reaction which would be the recoil from the firing. It does not apply to neurons in any other capacity. You are either shockingly stupid, or a master class troll, and I'm leaning towards the former. Again, to recap, because you're really not getting a simple concept: Newton's Third Law does not mean that neurons firing are pre-programmed. The law describes physical action-reaction force pair systems. If you attempt to invoke the law to describe things to which it does not apply, you are an idiot. For now, I'll be curating a list of things in which you think you are an expert, but of which you actually have no, or a deeply-flawed/incorrect, understanding. Your task should be to eliminate the things on this list, or stop talking about them like you know what they are. Things you don't understand, even a little: - Newtons Third Law
- How neurons work
- What Common Law is
- The difference between criminal and civil court jurisdiction
|
|
|
|
These are legitimate questions that I would like to see answered, at this point, just to eliminate doubt that is being manufactured, as evidenced by the increasing hysteria displayed in the headlines being posted in an attempt to create a reality that doesn't exist. Why are the questions coming from the House Energy and Commerce Committee though? |
|
|
|
Soon, every capitalist will have a decision to make.
[image snip]
The socialist paradise isn't materializing in Greece... Funny thing when you entitle people to have more than you can afford, you have to borrow money from productive economies. |
|
|
|
They are using guerilla tactics but have no real army. If they were forced to fight an open battle they would be cleared quicker than Saddam's forces in Iraq.
Allowing them to run around set bombs and murder prisoners is a mistake.
Obviously, no one is letting them do anything. It's not as simple as just "fix the mistake of letting them plant bombs." The problem is they operate in the shadows and the attacks are done in ways that cannot be prevented 100% of the time: car bombs in crowded places, suicide attacks, etc. This does raise the question as to whether attackers like this can even be defeated militarily. What is more crucial may be to win the war of ideology to cut off recruits to the cause. |
|
|
|
The attack on the ship is the first of its kind by the IS affiliate in Egypt, representing a qualitative evolvement in the military capabilities of the group, whose campaign of violence has been mostly restricted to the northern part of Sinai bordering Gaza and Israel. Its claim of responsibility for Thursday's attack on the vessel is the second in as many days for major operations, or attempted ones.
Pretty bold.
Their tactics of public executions got them more attention than the attack on the Egyptian Navy. They wouldn't want to unnecessarily take on a regional power. I would think the point of attacking a navy ship would be a show of force as a recruiting tool, as in look how powerful we are, you should join us and benefit from all we can offer you. Because there's not a lot of benefit in attacking people who can fight back, and engaging a military vessel is a marked departure from murdering unarmed civilians. |
|
|
|
|
There haven't been any input by the Islam defenders of the other threads here, which is disappointing. The question I find most interesting is: from their perspective, why do so many people who self-identify as Muslim find the violent message of ISIS so appealing, when those teaching are so obviously not Islamic? Do subscribing to those beliefs make them non-Muslim?
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is a lot of people asking valid questions of the OP, and no answers being given but a recital of the original call to boycott German goods. Can you even articulate what you hope a boycott will accomplish?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
