How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 13.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

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

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:26:25 PM

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

Which I understand you are the foremost authority on.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

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.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 01:03:41 PM

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!

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

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

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 06:21:09 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:07:18 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 06:00:11 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:47:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:42:38 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:29:19 PM

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 06:07:18 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 06:00:11 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:47:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:42:38 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:29:19 PM

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.

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

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

A burgeoning human population of 7 billion plus people is ever more dependent on technology and future technology to properly survive, and have quality of life. If we destroy our ecosystem services, and continue with high extinction rates, it is analogous to bleeding like crazy.

If we destroy all the information that resides within biodiversity, the ultimate end is a vastly simplified planet, like a desert of sand. There's so much less information to tap in such a world. Our real wealth currently exists untapped in the rich complex state of life.

And I haven't even discussed all the other ecosystem services.

TL;DR:

ZOMGZ WEER ALL GONNA DIEEEEEEE!!!

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

To their credit they do actually show a good amount of thier data which is more than I can say for the vast majority of biomed articles. Also keep in mind that each of those points in the upper panel should not be points but should be distributions, since they are taking the mean of multiple species data. They are ignoring variability thus making it more likely they can get a small p value. Ditto on the calving birth rate since they are combining data from multiple plots of land.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:53:02 PM

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 05:45:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:16:24 PM

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

Oh, it's a summary of scientific research, you say? Then follow up with the citations. Otherwise, I guess you can't judge it. Or correct me if I'm mistaken - perhaps you are qualified to judge. Demonstrate how.

This is baby stuff. Clearly data dredging going on here. Why 5% of births/emergence? Why not 10%? 20%?

Figure one from the paper shows the actual data, and we now understand why they chose 5% :

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2367.full.pdf+html?sid=ad1b0e43-ccf7-471b-b881-b3879a322954

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 06:00:11 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:47:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:42:38 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:29:19 PM

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:47:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:42:38 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:29:19 PM

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 05:51:50 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:26:38 PM

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five?

Search my body of posts and show me.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 05:45:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:16:24 PM

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

Oh, it's a summary of scientific research, you say? Then follow up with the citations. Otherwise, I guess you can't judge it. Or correct me if I'm mistaken - perhaps you are qualified to judge. Demonstrate how.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:26:38 PM

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Richy_T on November 27, 2012, 05:43:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 04:14:56 PM

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude.

I don't care about how many items are in the list. I did that to show a chain of effect. Show the tautologies. You guys are coming up short in droves here. Nothing you said here makes your claim have any truth.

Please tell me: how does a count of the items in the list make them untrue? You're engaging in deflection.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: bb113 on November 27, 2012, 05:08:30 PM

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.

I don't know. The version of solar I'd like to see would be satellites beaming power down. That's fairly centralized and has many benefits over individual solar. Now, distributed nuclear power, that's something that could be made to work (I believe)

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 27, 2012, 05:42:38 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:29:19 PM

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 05:16:24 PM

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 27, 2012, 04:14:56 PM

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude.

Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 13. (Read 23958 times)