Well it is the difference between NASA peer reviewed stuff and people you quote who have title's like "Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine". I wish I had something clever to say about the understanding of variance around here, but it is just a bit sad. |
|
|
|
But, my dear Spendy, we could have 20 km of sulfuric acid here on earth also if we don't give the oligarchs at the UN $315 TRILLION dollars to save us and let them design and operate a new global economic system. Don't you know this?
am i allowed to post videos on here? ill gladly send it to you Post the link. If you want to get fancy, highlight it and use the little globe looking tool. It's always interesting to see the pseudo-science and psychological methods used by the scare-mongers. Nye, Gore, etc are true bottom feeders. Tyson is at least one notch above them in the little bit that I've seen of his work. It is always interesting to see what you guys label as "interesting". Very telling about your psychological makeups. |
|
|
|
|
No, they're not too stupid or anything like that. They just have crippling cognitive biases and this is one of the places where they can sit around the watercooler and say to themselves "they're all idiots" while patting each other on the back.
I like cryptocurrency people for their skepticism, but at some point you realize that their skepticism is all too often too far out there.
|
|
|
|
Wish I saw this coin before, no idea where to join in.
Feel the same, regret not buying in sooner, sucks but can't watch every coin  I had 10 stakes of this coin but after that Pat guy "screwed up" by giving away stakes to random accounts the whole thing seemed super sketchy to me and I sold them all like a fool. Epic. |
|
|
|
|
I could try and pick apart the specification but it would be time consuming. Is it possible for the address to be shortened under 111?
I'm working under the assumption they are always length 111. Is this a safe assumption?
|
|
|
|
global warming is real and it requires a lot of government inervention to stop.
Lmao, the brainwash is deep in there.  Moar Gov FTW! Yea the brainwashing. These people have also been saying smoking causes cancer and the world is not flat!! What is next !??! RIGHT!?!?
RIGHT!! |
|
|
|
LOL ! It is not a difficult concept. If you have no faith in someone's results/evidence then you should not give them any credibility. Faith is not limited to a subset of religion or the likes. Perhaps I should have said in the 'scientific results' or what have you and not testing. Don't care enough to think about it too much with spendulus the buffoon. It might not be the optimal word, but it works just fine. If you guys have no faith in empirical measurements being based on reality, then you should have no faith in anything else. I'm sure someone at some point in your lives made the point that scientific reasoning does not rely on faith, but it does on some level. A lot of what you're taught might be somewhat incorrect to make a point and you poor fellas are now all confused. Spendulus has no faith in his precious cherry picked satellite measurements? Rubbish ! |
|
|
|
Are you fucking kidding me?
Science is not based on faith, but the testing and further testing of hypothesis..
You don't have faith in your testing? I do. You don't? Nope, that is in fact opposed to the scientific method. From Wikipedia - Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious beliefYou may not LIKE that satellite measurements show certain values, and they may not be in accordance with your BELIEFS, but that's all not relevant to the scientific method. Additional tests may be devised, and exhaustively, they are put against the hypotheses, in efforts to beat the null hypotheses. Singular or plural. It may be of interest to you that it's a very strong argument that "global warming" is not even a scientific hypothesis. Also, "warmers" have a number of curious arguments that are blatantly unscientific and which should always be objected to. "the science is settled." "The consensus is..." Then there's the "Precautionary principle." yap yap yap. Go google definition faith. If you don't believe in the results of your science, then you have no faith in them. This is simply nothing more than a man with a significantly lower IQ arguing semantics and getting his ass handed to him time and time again. |
|
|
|
But what is the position? You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming." You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion. That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use. This is all in your head. There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded. None.
Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal. Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things. Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.
.....Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming...... Oh, so are you still attempting to present a scientific argument on this point, or have you simply admitted it is for you a matter of faith? Let me know which it is as in the latter case I have nothing to say. Seriously? It is just complete random mental illness? Interesting... Very very interesting. Ok, not really. Mental illness isn't funny. Keep misquoting and ignoring any and all hard questions will cherry picking your evidence. One can tell you evidence is flimsy because you can't even acknowledge your bullshit. Quote me where I said satellite measurements should be discarded. Start with that one. Unfortunately you're in for it when you find out your mind has been playing tricks on you.  Are you fucking kidding me? Science is not based on faith, but the testing and further testing of hypothesis.. You don't have faith in your testing? I do. You don't? |
|
|
|
I kept 500 Ether, 1,000 Litecoin and 500 PPC in a cold wallet in a password protected .rar file on my desktop, when I happened to check my watch address yesterday all the balances were emptied two days ago.
I made two mistakes (1) I download a lot from Torrent sites, (2) I kept ALL my "cold" storage paper wallets in one encrypted WinRar file with a 12 character password. I thought this security was enough and am still at a loss as to what happened.
I don't know what was your password, but with only 12 characters there are very high chances it was weak enough to be brute forced. I suggest you read some guides on how to choose a strong password: http://lifehacker.com/four-methods-to-create-a-secure-password-youll-actually-1601854240And downloading from torrents is not the problem (assuming your system does not have exploitable holes), the problem is what programs you run after downloading them. Depending what you download, there is a very high chance it is bundled with malicious stuff.I know how it feels to lost even files due to malware but you have lost a lot of money and i am sorry about your loss. But these days i find online storage like google drive more secure place to store files.
Are you implying that it's safer to store files in online cloud storage than on your own computer?! lol If you encrypt your file appropriately (strong password, algorithm) before uploading then it is not only pretty safe, it is also recommended. I recommend GnuPG, or AES Crypt. Because keeping your backup in only 1 place is actually a bad idea, what would happen if a natural disaster wipes your house, or you get robbed?! Your data will be simply lost, that is when online backups are very useful and should always be considered, especially when the data is crucial. This is not true. Torrents are likely as secure and no more than a website. (They depend on the originator link) However, if you went to The Pirate Bay, searched for bitcoin, you might very well find a backdoor client being seeded. Maybe this is what you mean and I'm sure you understand this, but I just saw this and thought it needed clarification. |
|
|
|
But what is the position? You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming." You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion. That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use. This is all in your head. There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded. None.
Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal. Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things. Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.
.....Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming...... Oh, so are you still attempting to present a scientific argument on this point, or have you simply admitted it is for you a matter of faith? Let me know which it is as in the latter case I have nothing to say. You have no faith in your scientific beliefs ? Seriously? It is just complete random mental illness? Interesting... Very very interesting. Ok, not really. Mental illness isn't funny. Keep misquoting and ignoring any and all hard questions will cherry picking your evidence. One can tell you evidence is flimsy because you can't even acknowledge your bullshit. Quote me where I said satellite measurements should be discarded. Start with that one. Unfortunately you're in for it when you find out your mind has been playing tricks on you. |
|
|
|
But what is the position? You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming." You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion. That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use. This is all in your head. There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded. None.
Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal. Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things. Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-recordsNutball, I never said they should be discarded. Ever. I said both datasets have issues. You are selective in the issues you have with one dataset and not the other. I'm not going to repeat myself, nutball. The rest of the world has figured it out. I can point to issues with both datasets and it is not clear which issues are more significant to me but all things equal, we'd want the temperatures that we actually exist in. Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming. THere is a certain mindset that is what i might call the sickly skeptical. I love skeptics. However at some point your bias blows away your ability to reason logically. So I guess you understand everything involved? Wow, you must be God himself. lol. And here you are with nothing better to do but argue with randoms on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Both sides of this debate are too fear driven. Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.
The non-partisan facts appear to be:
Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO2 emissions.
Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.
As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).
So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.
It's been argued, I think quite convincingly, that Warmers who want to control other peoples' behavior to "save the planet" are not going to stop regardless of what technology comes to exist. This is because we are seeing control freaks in action. They want control, period. Overall, though, your post makes a lot of sense. Yes the 95%+ of scientists who agree on manmade global warming are "control freaks". On this post in particular I keep hearing a coo coo clock after reading it. |
|
|
|
I also fully comprehend your prescient statement "the world is full of reasons to believe..." And that's the key phrase, "believe." That's a very different thing than a scientific understanding, or a scientific approach to a problem. Oh, by the way, I get along just fine with scientists and professors, researcher type guys and women. Some people really understand this stuff to great depth and are a pleasure to discuss this things with.
LOL, please remember that it was not me that started the subject of satellite temps vs the ground network. I just answered a simple question as to why prefer one or the other. You didn't like my answer. Makes no difference to me. I just went back to the original statement, reviewed it again, saw no reason to modify it or add to it.
Uhhhh, scientific understanding has people believe in what they understand. While you know a lot, you obviously don't have a particularly high IQ because your reasoning blows. (to put it politely) The main difference between me and you is that I'm smart enough to understand what I don't know. You just use selective evidence to make your point and try your best to convince everyone your approach is based on your vast understanding and not your vast biases. Most people do not study this subject well enough to refute you, because frankly it is very complex and incredibly time consuming. I have to worry about things like making money unfortunately. Although this thread is great for hearing the best points of skeptics. Frankly that's bat shit crazy talk. I produced an argument based on first semester college physics as to why satellite temperature measurements are superior to ground temperature averages, it's up to you to refute it, or argue against it, or fall back on the "belief". I don't care what you do, think or believe. If you're through trying to argue that ground based temperatures are superior, then you're through. I don't know if i said they are superior. They are preferred. The only reason they are not preferred is if you want to cherry pick the data and measure something slightly different than the aspect of global warming that will directly impact us. |
|
|
|
I also fully comprehend your prescient statement "the world is full of reasons to believe..." And that's the key phrase, "believe." That's a very different thing than a scientific understanding, or a scientific approach to a problem. Oh, by the way, I get along just fine with scientists and professors, researcher type guys and women. Some people really understand this stuff to great depth and are a pleasure to discuss this things with.
LOL, please remember that it was not me that started the subject of satellite temps vs the ground network. I just answered a simple question as to why prefer one or the other. You didn't like my answer. Makes no difference to me. I just went back to the original statement, reviewed it again, saw no reason to modify it or add to it.
Uhhhh, scientific understanding has people believe in what they understand. While you know a lot, you obviously don't have a particularly high IQ because your reasoning blows. (to put it politely) The main difference between me and you is that I'm smart enough to understand what I don't know. You just use selective evidence to make your point and try your best to convince everyone your approach is based on your vast understanding and not your vast biases. Most people do not study this subject well enough to refute you, because frankly it is very complex and incredibly time consuming. I have to worry about things like making money unfortunately. Although this thread is great for hearing the best points of skeptics. And again you start in with the "Why I am smart" type reasoning. You know a lot about this subject. People are almost always happy to talk about their area of specialty in the world if they find someone who has a keen interest in said subject. I wouldn't think otherwise. Do you start in telling them they "believe in the creed" and randomly start chastising them about recycling and other idiocy I've read from you ? Probably not as people would just stop talking to you because they'd deem you a freak. Of course you're not going to modify or add your statements. They're based on some ideology of skepticism. Ideology is not something people change based on reason or logic. Luckily the world is moving past you and you guys are put in your own little corner to exercise your right to free speech. |
|
|
|
Looks like I already covered the subject of you being completely ignorant on the subjects you talk about. Has nothing to do with whatever subject in whatever school, however if you want to I'll be happy to restrict the subject with to to a specific grade level. 6th?
Odd, though as 1st semester physics at the high school level covers gas and temperature relations and partial pressure relations. As well as phase relationships, temperature changes, heat of fusion, and equilibrium. Have you successfully unlearned these things?
This is what I mean. You're completely wrong about so much, but you still try to make yourself come across as smart. You do this via insulting intelligence of those who argue with you. I have not shown an inability to not understand anything. I've used terms like radiosity which are not particulary accurate for things that apparently do not even have a single word to define it. For a guy who is wrong in a huge way and would be considered a lunatic in many educated circles, you try your best to paint yourself as super smart and above everyone else who disagrees. (aka the vast majority) Then you fail basic shit like formatting of your messages. The interesting part to me is the absolute desperation in your replies trying to convince someone (yourself?) that you are far beyond everyone's understanding. I started pointing out things changing in major ways, but you'll find some little bit of evidence countering some scientist's claims at some point. Then you and the few other guys who need the psychological boost all rally around it. Oh that guy was wrong !! That sorta shit. That counter evidence will still be completely dwarfed by all the evidence in the other direction which OF COURSE you will not bring up and seem to ignore when brought up before you. I think it is hard to argue with certain types of evidence. You're limited in what types of evidence you can refute with your toolbox. The temperatures you have the fall back of bias. When you see the artic ice disappeaaring to the degree it is, you can't really argue that away unless you say that all the data is completely falsified including maps etc. Anyway, I hope you guys are right. This has been interesting to me. I wish I could give you guys interesting data, but the world is full of why to believe in global warming. |
|
|
|
...
We call this an Ad Hominem argument. about nonsense. lol Defining oneself as Trolling... For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart.... Fascinating. Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....." I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith. And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff. And they know best for us all. And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct. Plus we have Regulators. And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board. Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7WgI am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet. <<sarcasm>> You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most. There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ... you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy. Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again. I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league. I once went to their show and fell asleep. (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? ) I'd blame your intellectual void?! A slight flicker of understanding is occurring in my dull brain. Someone who does not understand science and cannot even use words of science is passing judgement on scientific facts and theories that he does not understand. That's quite interesting. Should such be encouraged, or discouraged? Let's ask Lysenko. If you say so. I got an A in the first semester of engineering physics and only went to class to grab the syllabus and realized what was required. It is a fine school, not Ivey league but the best in a very large state. Rumor as the time was that the course was a course to weed out people. My point is not to brag about my intellectual prowess, that is your thing. I can readily admit areas where I am ignorant, but I'm not the one thinking they're more correct than the vast majority of active practicing scientists who are on some completely unprecedented global conspiracy. You keep trying to paint me as having no clue when I am just a bit ignorant on terminology and all the complexities behind this subject. I at least appreciation the complexities as I've written simulations before dealing with complicated subjects. So you pick on me for being dumb and I pick on you for being a crackpot lunatic. Chuckle. I wonder who is more correct ?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
