How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[FirstAscent]

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim.

You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own.

Another claim, now about me being an idiot. Yet you were the one who lent credence to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked. 

See what I mean? Only an idiot would mistake skepticism as lending credence to a conspiracy theory.

Dude, there's skepticism, and then there's blindness induced lack of common sense.

[iCEBREAKER]

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

Citation please.  Or it didn't happen.  And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig.

What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

[iCEBREAKER]

I failed to mention a couple other effects:

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

I added the new post because I saw you were online, and you might not have seen it otherwise.

Here's a handy chart summarizing your very important findings!

[bb113]

Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship:

To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations.

Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted.

[myrkul]

Dude, there's skepticism, and then there's blindness induced lack of common sense.

Which I understand you are the foremost authority on.

[FirstAscent]

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

Citation please.  Or it didn't happen.  And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig.

What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

LOL!

Dig deeper.

[FirstAscent]

Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship:

To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations.

Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted.

And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading.

[bb113]

Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship:

To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations.

Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted.

And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading.

I don't see how that follows from my critical reading of that paper.

[FirstAscent]

Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship:

To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations.

Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted.

And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading.

I don't see how that follows from my critical reading of that paper.

It may not follow from your critical reading of the paper. However, I don't see how northward migration is dependent on one individual's critical reading of that paper. Can you explain to me why northward migration in the northern hemisphere would not naturally occur due to warming?

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

You are wading into territory which may be beyond you. Examine your position, your goals, and your experience with the subject matter.

[iCEBREAKER]

LOL!

Dig deeper.

Been there, done that.  Took home the trophy for top debater.   

I've been completely on top of the climate issue since 1994.  Ditto for overpopulation and the rest of the environmental catastophism topic areas.

There's no argument for anthropogenic ManBearPig you can make that I haven't heard before and know the answer to.

The sun heats the earth dude.  The only other things that can change earth's climate are volcanoes and asteroids.

Go peddle your scam somewhere else, nobody here is buying it.  Bitcoiners like increasing freedom, not giving the governments of the world more power and control.

I used to be like you, scared of ManBearPig and angry at mankind for not understanding how serial it all is.  Then I grew up!   

[iCEBREAKER]

Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail!

Da, tovarich!  We must all aid Comrade FirstAsscent in his glorious battle against the evils of capitalism and the bourgeois carbon dioxide menace.

Down with the wicked, imperialist sun!  Forward into the darkness!

[Richy_T]

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

Citation please.  Or it didn't happen.  And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig.

What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Pah, you expect us to pay any attention to right-wing nutjob websites like the BBC?

[FirstAscent]

LOL!

Dig deeper.

Been there, done that.  Took home the trophy for top debater.   

Then how come you missed this one?

[Richy_T]

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

OMG! Animals are walking uphill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?)

[FirstAscent]

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

OMG! Animals are walking downhill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?)

How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion?

[bb113]

Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship:

To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations.

Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted.

And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading.

I don't see how that follows from my critical reading of that paper.

It may not follow from your critical reading of the paper. However, I don't see how northward migration is dependent on one individual's critical reading of that paper. Can you explain to me why northward migration in the northern hemisphere would not naturally occur due to warming?

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

You are wading into territory which may be beyond you. Examine your position, your goals, and your experience with the subject matter.

So then the literature actually doesn't matter, anecdotal evidence of looking at shit as you hike is much better? I'm not sure what you meant by that. I can think of many explanations for northward migration of some species (so the evidence for this is the most important thing?) one of which is warming. I can also think of many reasons why warming would not result in northward migration, which probably influence different species in different ways.

[Richy_T]

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

OMG! Animals are walking downhill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?)

How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion?

Dude, I was always resigned that there would be no reasonable discussion with you. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I just couldn't let your assertions stand uncontested, particularly ones that are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.

[FirstAscent]

So then the literature actually doesn't matter, anecdotal evidence of looking at shit as you hike is much better?

You're a neuroscientist, or something like that. The authors of the papers you're reading know a little more than you about the subject matter they're studying. Not just data. They live in it. I have experienced it. I notice you didn't point out your experience with regard to it.

I'm not sure what you meant by that. I can think of many explanations for northward migration of some species (so the evidence for this is the most important thing?) one of which is warming. I can also think of many reasons why warming would not result in northward migration, which probably influence different species in different ways.

Now you're coming around to my side. Different migration rates result in a fracturing of ecosystem cascades. That also results in weakened ecosystem services.

[FirstAscent]

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

OMG! Animals are walking downhill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?)

How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion?

Dude, I was always resigned that there would be no reasonable discussion with you. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I just couldn't let your assertions stand uncontested.

If you can't stand letting my assertions stand uncontested, then by all means, contest them. That's what I've been asking you to do, rather than make childish mocking noises and useless remarks about the count of lines in a post.

[bb113]

So then the literature actually doesn't matter, anecdotal evidence of looking at shit as you hike is much better?

You're a neuroscientist, or something like that. The authors of the papers you're reading know a little more than you about the subject matter you're studying. Not just data. They live in it. I have experienced it. I notice you didn't point out your experience with regard to it.

I'm not sure what you meant by that. I can think of many explanations for northward migration of some species (so the evidence for this is the most important thing?) one of which is warming. I can also think of many reasons why warming would not result in northward migration, which probably influence different species in different ways.

I have experience in looking at data and dealing with bias. I should say that after looking at a few more climate science papers these are much higher quality than the majority of biomed papers. Its hard to say much more than that without looking closer at the models and collecting the data myself ( as you say). I still see these damn p<.05 everywhere, and then future papers ignoring the uncertainty when quoting the results and incorporating the lesser models into their own larger ones, which makes me wary.

Now you're coming around to my side. Different migration rates result in a fracturing of ecosystem cascades. That also results in weakened ecosystem services.

Real life isn't like that. It matters how different, how fast, what else is around to fill a niche, etc.