How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 12.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:56:53 PM

I never claimed to hold a strong opinion regarding global warming (even go back and check a year ago). I hold a strong opinion about using scientific consensus as an argument and believing what you read in the news.

Like any True Believer, he views any skepticism as an immediate acceptance of the opposing view.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:50:16 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:45:43 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:36:05 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:26:29 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:12:04 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

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.

I think you should read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life, maybe a book by John Terborgh, and a few others. And maybe you should go climb a fourteener. It's not all data and plots. Some context helps. A general understanding combined with lucid explanation and real world examples will make everything logically obvious.

Either way, this is not going to help me accept an argument from consensus.

That's not how the brain works, and you should know that. Context and experience influence our views. More importantly, I sincerely believe, given my discussion with you, that you are lacking proper context. You can't possibly believe that your observations of a few plots puts you in a position to grade the quality of your opinion very highly.

I never claimed to hold a strong opinion regarding global warming (even go back and check a year ago). I hold a strong opinion about using scientific consensus as an argument and believing what you read in the news.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:45:43 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:36:05 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:26:29 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:12:04 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

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.

I think you should read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life, maybe a book by John Terborgh, and a few others. And maybe you should go climb a fourteener. It's not all data and plots. Some context helps. A general understanding combined with lucid explanation and real world examples will make everything logically obvious.

Either way, this is not going to help me accept an argument from consensus.

That's not how the brain works, and you should know that. Context and experience influence our views. More importantly, I sincerely believe, given my discussion with you, that you are lacking proper context. You can't possibly believe that your observations of a few plots puts you in a position to grade the quality of your opinion very highly.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:36:05 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:26:29 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:12:04 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

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.

I think you should read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life, maybe a book by John Terborgh, and a few others. And maybe you should go climb a fourteener. It's not all data and plots. Some context helps. A general understanding combined with lucid explanation and real world examples will make everything logically obvious.

Either way, this is not going to help me accept an argument from consensus.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:26:29 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:12:04 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

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.

I think you should read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life, maybe a book by John Terborgh, and a few others. And maybe you should go climb a fourteener. It's not all data and plots. Some context helps. A general understanding combined with lucid explanation and real world examples will make everything logically obvious.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:05:17 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 07:03:49 PM

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?

We have given up hope of possibly educating you. You are impervious to facts and reason.

You cling to ManBearPig ideology as stubbornly as any brainwashed cult victim.

If you can't or won't understand that ClimateGate completely destroyed your global scam, you are beyond help.

All that's left to do is have some fun by ridiculing you for being so ridiculous.

If this were the 1970s, you'd be one of the Chicken Little doomsayers screaming about the impending explosion of the population bomb and the oncoming Ice Age.

End Of The World cults always find plenty of mushheads to exploit. There's one born every minute!

Still, it's nice to see Bitcoin is growing beyond the razor-sharp-but-tiny cryptonerd community, into the gullible Max Kremlin Occutard demographic.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:12:04 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 07:14:31 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:05:17 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 07:03:49 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:52:20 PM

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 07:12:04 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 07:05:17 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 07:03:49 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:52:20 PM

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:52:20 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 06:40:19 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:38:39 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 06:34:08 PM

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:

Quote

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 07:03:49 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:52:20 PM

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?

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:52:20 PM

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

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 27, 2012, 06:53:47 PM

Quote

LOL!

Dig deeper.

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

Then how come you missed this one?

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 27, 2012, 06:26:49 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 26, 2012, 11:48:45 PM

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.

Quote

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?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 03:49:03 PM

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!

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 12:54:44 PM

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! Kiss

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 06:40:19 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:38:39 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 06:34:08 PM

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:

Quote

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:38:39 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 06:34:08 PM

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:

Quote

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

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 06:34:08 PM

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:

Quote

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.

Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 12. (Read 23958 times)