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. |
|
|
|
....
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. Yeah, the media (from left to right) + Trump hyped the shit out of it for 3+ years. One side made it seem like Trump was just a Russian puppet and the other made it seem like Mueller had a team of angry democrats that would stop at nothing to end Trump presidency. If you read the report, or the Russian indictments, you'll see there was actually a ton of other stuff going on, and they were able to figure out a very impressive amount of info on a group of Russians that were using every trick in the book to cover their tracks. Trump just didn't want people to think Russia tried to help him get elected, even though they absolutely did, and he did a really good job of convincing millions of people to believe him. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf |
|
|
|
Stop spamming that shit, nobody is interested. Your scam feedback can be found here. https://rocketr.net/sellers/9900K#feedback / the buyer can't reply back when the seller replied with false shit. This user is completely scammer, %100 of the forum is full with bustabit shits and he keep scamming peoples with different accounts. He might be a scammer, but the accounts he's reporting are definitely scammers. If he keeps reporting them, I'll keep tagging them. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. 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.pdf |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
But the number was available on google so...they kinda deserved it.
I can't say I condone the trolls jamming the lines but I can laugh at the Ds incompetence to let such a thing happen.. And some voters want these people in charge of their healthcare and military.. Imagine that.. I doubt anyone qualified to be in the cabinet was volunteering in Iowa and IDP is a bunch of old white farmers. |
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
|
...
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? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
I wasn't aware they gave out Nobel Peace Prizes for producing left wing propaganda. This must be a new category.
Al Gore won in 2007. |
|
|
|
...
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... Some examples of what I consider unauthentic: Every Senator that played the 'There isn't enough evidence, it's all hearsay' card, and then voted against receiving direct evidence. If they thought the whole time it didn't matter at all whether he did it or not, why try to convince the country that maybe he didn't do it, and then back-peddle when given the power to decide on direct evidence? Because they were just following orders, what they did or said was not a reflection of their actual opinion. Especially Lindsay Graham who said "If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing" in October. It's not a republican thing, it's a political thing, and I get that. The democrats pull the same stunts. It's very rare to see a politician stand up and basically sacrifice his political career and face an inevitable shit load of attacks from literally millions of people simply because it would violate his oath to the country not to, especially when it would be a million times easy to just shut up and fall in line. But it seems like that's exactly what Romney did. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit and if he didn't have another 5 years left in his term things would be different...but I still don't see any personal upside to doing what he did, other than being able to sleep better. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
~
I don't know... based on looks I'd go with Pete I think. I disagree. Based on attractiveness, you may have a point. I can't say for sure because I'm heterosexual, and neither are capable of making me switch teams. But there's something else in their looks that would encourage me to pick Trump. It's that "deer in the headlights" look in Pete's eyes, and the "wolf on the hunt" look in Trump's. The two's track record would suggest something in their personalities correlates with "the look." Other than being the same gender, Pete is pretty much the opposite of trump in every other way, at least more so than any other candidate imo. Wealth, Hair, Age, Stature, Military History, Sexual Orientation, Personality, Intelligence |
|
|
|
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume it was him.
I don't think that assumption would be unreasonable either, until he tells you explicitly denies it. Now for your assumption to be true, FH would have to be a liar. If you think he's a liar, fine. But to say "I don't care what he did or says", demonstrates that you don't care whether or not your accusations are true or false. You are the one making the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. To be more specific, I don't care what you say. What he says is clearly relevant. I never claimed to prove anything. I am making a public log of moderator actions against my posts in the section. None of this changes the fact that only he and Theymos know for sure what happened. Your actions speak louder than words, and they support what you said the first time. Your public log of moderator actions has only one moderators name on it. The mod has denied being responsible for multiple entries, you said you didn't care what he said, you said you wouldn't edit it. I think he just overlooked the possibility that you were responding to my post in a thread I didn't post in.
Are you accusing him of lying about deleting your post? Seems unlikely to me, but this isn't the first time he has explicitly told you that he didn't delete a post from your "FLYING HELLFISH - SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CENSORSHIP" thread, and you seem to just not care.
If you think he's lying, call him out on it and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.
If you don't think he's lying, then remove the posts he says he didn't delete.
Or do nothing if you don't care if your accusations against FH are accurate or not. I don't care what he did or says. |
|
|
|
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume it was him.
I don't think that assumption would be unreasonable either, until he tells you explicitly denies it. Now for your assumption to be true, FH would have to be a liar. If you think he's a liar, fine. But to say "I don't care what he did or says", demonstrates that you don't care whether or not your accusations are true or false. You are the one making the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. |
|
|
|
You really think it's ok to blame FH for deleting posts he didn't delete, and use them of evidence that he is an unfair moderator? I don't care what he did or says. A moderator deleted those posts
Really? The accusation isn't against 'moderators', it's against FH. You sure you don't care? You have no way of knowing for sure what happened any more than I do. You are making conclusions based on your speculation and confirmation bias. I will not comply with any of these demands. You feel free to make your own accusations. My thread will remain, unedited. My conclusions: - You created the thread "FLYING HELLFISH - SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CENSORSHIP" - FH denied deleting multiple posts that you added to the thread. - You said "I don't care what he [FH] did or says" What speculation? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
