Making it better

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:22 pm

MikeN wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:15 pm
Landrew, look at the numbers I posted above. That 3% reduction leads to an overall 30% reduction over the scenario of US+Europe cuts by 80% while rest of the world grows by 5%.
I don't dispute your numbers, but I question whether it's going to make a significant difference over all. If we don't bail the boat faster than it takes on water, it will sink.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:07 pm

Perhaps when talking about third world countries, it is worth remembering that by far the biggest such emitter is China. (Debatable whether we can still call China third world). It is also well worth remembering that China has done more to reduce green house gas emissions than any other single nation, and has a program to drastically reduce it a lot more.

The biggest problem in China is burning coal for energy, and they have done a lot to tighten up on emissions here. The average coal burning plant in the USA would be illegal in China because it is too careless with emissions. China is working hard to replace coal burning plants with other sources of energy that are lower in greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, China has 46 nuclear power reactors, and 11 more under construction.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:03 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:07 pm
Perhaps when talking about third world countries, it is worth remembering that by far the biggest such emitter is China. (Debatable whether we can still call China third world). It is also well worth remembering that China has done more to reduce green house gas emissions than any other single nation, and has a program to drastically reduce it a lot more.

The biggest problem in China is burning coal for energy, and they have done a lot to tighten up on emissions here. The average coal burning plant in the USA would be illegal in China because it is too careless with emissions. China is working hard to replace coal burning plants with other sources of energy that are lower in greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, China has 46 nuclear power reactors, and 11 more under construction.
I'm not so favorably impressed with China. They may be doing more than any other country to mitigate emissions, but they are emitting far more than any other country. It's like the businessman in the community who gives the most to the church, to absolve himself of the fact that he steals more from the community than anyone else.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:52 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:19 pm
Gee.....I learned in school that probability theory/math was only appropriate for "future events." Somebody has been suckered...............and I give that a probability of .99999999999 which to the astute introduces an entirely different subject.
What? So if you say something happened in history, is it simply true or not true? How could probability not be used?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:54 pm

Landrew.

True, by country. On a per capita basis, China emits a lot less than any western nation.

China emits one third of the developing worlds share. All Asian countries put together, except China and India, emit less than the USA alone. There is no point blaming developing nations for their relatively minor contributions to greenhouse gases on a per person basis. Just in helping them to reduce their contribution WITHOUT harming the welfare of their people.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:56 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:52 pm

What? So if you say something happened in history, is it simply true or not true? How could probability not be used?
To the best of my knowledge, there is no way a historian can allocate an accurate probability. So it boils down to personal estimates.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:57 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:52 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:19 pm
Gee.....I learned in school that probability theory/math was only appropriate for "future events." Somebody has been suckered...............and I give that a probability of .99999999999 which to the astute introduces an entirely different subject.
What? So if you say something happened in history, is it simply true or not true? How could probability not be used?
Because "formally" probability is a math. Human behavior is not.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:59 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:43 pm
Lausten

Your Carrier quote simply says you can assign probabilities. Not very helpful.

Of course, most such assigned probabilities are guesses, and thus meaningless. But if we are playing that game, let me assign a probability (a guess, in other words) to the idea that 1.5 million people will die every year due to global warming by the year 2100. My assigned probability is about 0.001.
Lance, you've done a good job of faking me out that you are intelligent. I guess I hadn't paid that much attention before. Now you are saying that when I scientist says "that's unlikely given the evidence", it doesn't mean anything. To me, it means they have studied whatever they are talking about, they have collected data, they have determined the probabilities of things happening, they know when something is a hard fact, observable and unequivocal, and when something is expected, possible or uncertain. All of these things can and are converted into numbers for the purpose of determining the likelihood of future outcomes of experiments or actual future events. I'm just explaining what scientists do here. What you did was put a number to something you just made up. You have nothing to back it up.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:57 pm
Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:52 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:19 pm
Gee.....I learned in school that probability theory/math was only appropriate for "future events." Somebody has been suckered...............and I give that a probability of .99999999999 which to the astute introduces an entirely different subject.
What? So if you say something happened in history, is it simply true or not true? How could probability not be used?
Because "formally" probability is a math. Human behavior is not.
I see where you are confused. I'm not talking about mathematical proofs. I'm talking about the Bayesian theorem. It involves putting numbers to speculation. It's not intended to be precise, it's done to add some rigor to the way we actually do speculate. I'll start a different thread later and link it.


I put it in the history forum *******
Last edited by Lausten on Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:04 am

Yes, yes.....its wrapping BS in a thin cloth of inappropriate respectability. Bayesian is still about predicting the future.....not predicting the past.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:05 am

Lausten wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:52 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:19 pm
Gee.....I learned in school that probability theory/math was only appropriate for "future events." Somebody has been suckered...............and I give that a probability of .99999999999 which to the astute introduces an entirely different subject.
What? So if you say something happened in history, is it simply true or not true? How could probability not be used?
It's a bit ridiculous to assign numeric probabilities to the life sciences. It's appropriate for some things like genetics, but for most other phenomena it's pure folly. There are simply too many variables, which behave inconsistently. Weather and climate prediction are notoriously chaotic and difficult to predict. Weather forecasts predicting a percentages chance of rain are never accurate. An old joke in the broadcasting business is when you don't have a weather report, just say, "partly cloudy, chance of rain." You're never wrong, because its so vague.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:11 am

To Lausten

You missed the point. Yes, I posed a number and had nothing to back it up. Wow !

The point that I was illustrating, is that all those probabilities are unsupported guesses. Unless you have full data, and can calculate probabilities accurately, they are just guesses. Most quoted probabiIities are, in fact, guesses.

As to "faking you out about being intelligent", note that I have a measured IQ of 130, a university degree, and from an aptitude test, a score for what the psychologist called 'critical decision making' ability, that is so high that fewer than 1 in 1000 meet it. That ability is what I call bullsh!t detection . It is very clear to me that most people are not very good at identifying bullsh!t.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:24 am

Then you should know difference between a scientific theorizing and speculation.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:30 am

I do.

And I also can tell bullsh!t when I hear or read it.
When Bobbo posted that nonsense about 1.5 million deaths due to global warming each year in 2100, I knew immediately it was bullsh!t. So should you.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:59 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:30 am
I do.

And I also can tell bullsh!t when I hear or read it.
When Bobbo posted that nonsense about 1.5 million deaths due to global warming each year in 2100, I knew immediately it was bullsh!t. So should you.
How does one "know immediately". You would need some facts. You would be doing probability estimates in your head. You could be wrong. If you don't state your assumptions, no one could show you how are wrong or be convinced they are wrong.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:59 am

I have already explained.

Principle one. Prediction is difficult. Especially about the future.
Principle two. Complex models rather frequently fall over.
Principle three. Predictions lose accuracy the further into the future you look. 80 years is WAY too far.
Principle four. Predictions that are too specific fall over. 1.5 million pa is much too specific.
Principle five. Predictions that follow the nowscast fallacy fall over.

Does that make it clear ?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:28 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:59 am
I have already explained.

Principle one. Prediction is difficult. Especially about the future.
Principle two. Complex models rather frequently fall over.
Principle three. Predictions lose accuracy the further into the future you look. 80 years is WAY too far.
Principle four. Predictions that are too specific fall over. 1.5 million pa is much too specific.
Principle five. Predictions that follow the nowscast fallacy fall over.

Does that make it clear ?
It makes it clear what you are saying. But that has been clear for a long time. It's also clear that you think pretty highly of yourself since you are including your made up fallacy in a "principle".
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:30 pm

Lausten wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:28 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:59 am
I have already explained.

Principle one. Prediction is difficult. Especially about the future.
Principle two. Complex models rather frequently fall over.
Principle three. Predictions lose accuracy the further into the future you look. 80 years is WAY too far.
Principle four. Predictions that are too specific fall over. 1.5 million pa is much too specific.
Principle five. Predictions that follow the nowscast fallacy fall over.

Does that make it clear ?
It makes it clear what you are saying. But that has been clear for a long time. It's also clear that you think pretty highly of yourself since you are including your made up fallacy in a "principle".
Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that past predictions and models regarding climate have been notoriously inaccurate. There are plenty of headlines making alarming predictions about the climate threatening our well-being. Anyone making such claims should be prepared to answer for them instead of throwing false labels like "denier" at those who have a perfect right to challenge them.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:04 pm

landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:30 pm
Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that past predictions and models regarding climate have been notoriously inaccurate. There are plenty of headlines making alarming predictions about the climate threatening our well-being. Anyone making such claims should be prepared to answer for them instead of throwing false labels like "denier" at those who have a perfect right to challenge them.
They do answer for them, and I'm not aware of anyone being called a denier that didn't deserve it. I'm sure it happens in some bar somewhere, but not anywhere that matters.

When I first started reading these threads, I assumed Bobbo was being his usual moronic self in demanding that people back up their claims with links. Now I see why he is so frustrated.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:23 pm

Lausten wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:04 pm
landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:30 pm
Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that past predictions and models regarding climate have been notoriously inaccurate. There are plenty of headlines making alarming predictions about the climate threatening our well-being. Anyone making such claims should be prepared to answer for them instead of throwing false labels like "denier" at those who have a perfect right to challenge them.
They do answer for them, and I'm not aware of anyone being called a denier that didn't deserve it. I'm sure it happens in some bar somewhere, but not anywhere that matters.

When I first started reading these threads, I assumed Bobbo was being his usual moronic self in demanding that people back up their claims with links. Now I see why he is so frustrated.
And I've learned that you expect to win your arguments with self-referential definitions. "I'm not aware of anyone being called a denier that didn't deserve it." That's like saying, "I never made what I considered a mistake."

You also seem to panic when faced with a cogent argument, and quickly deflect towards personal attacks. That's the "resilience" I referred to earlier. There's no knowledge to be gained here, when you can't accept a single thing someone else says.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:23 pm

landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:23 pm
And I've learned that you expect to win your arguments with self-referential definitions. "I'm not aware of anyone being called a denier that didn't deserve it." That's like saying, "I never made what I considered a mistake."

You also seem to panic when faced with a cogent argument, and quickly deflect towards personal attacks. That's the "resilience" I referred to earlier. There's no knowledge to be gained here, when you can't accept a single thing someone else says.
You could prove me wrong with one example. That goes for many of the statements I've made. But you never even try. You just insult me. There's a name for what you do.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:36 pm

Lausten wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:23 pm
landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:23 pm
And I've learned that you expect to win your arguments with self-referential definitions. "I'm not aware of anyone being called a denier that didn't deserve it." That's like saying, "I never made what I considered a mistake."

You also seem to panic when faced with a cogent argument, and quickly deflect towards personal attacks. That's the "resilience" I referred to earlier. There's no knowledge to be gained here, when you can't accept a single thing someone else says.
You could prove me wrong with one example. That goes for many of the statements I've made. But you never even try. You just insult me. There's a name for what you do.
It's easy to say you're never wrong in a self-referencial way. Citation wars prove nothing on here. There's too much garbage online. I argue with evidence, rationale and reasoning. You argue with emotions and fallacies. Whenever things don't seem to go your way, you resort to personal characterizations. None of those tactics ever support or refute an argument. No wonder you're so frustrated.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:21 pm

landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:36 pm
I argue with evidence....
Show me the evidence that you have shown evidence.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:33 pm

Lausten wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:21 pm
landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:36 pm
I argue with evidence....
Show me the evidence that you have shown evidence.
You can do your own work; I post plenty of supporting links when appropriate.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:48 pm

Lausten

My made up fallacy is as much a principle as any other, for the simple reason that it is correct. Nothing special, since it is just common sense. But correct.

Think about it. Someone is trying to predict the future with a model. That person says :" OK. We have factors A, B ,C, and D, which will all change in a way we anticipate. Therefore in X years, we can predict outcome F. " But what they ignore is factor E, which is also changing. They assume E will not change, (it will stay as it is now, hence nowscast,) but it does change. Therefore their prediction falls flat on its face.

The most commonly ignored factor is human action, often due to advancing technology. That should never be ignored, since it has driven most of the changes humanity has experienced in the last 200 odd years. But it is so often ignored. Hence the nowscast fallacy.

Your modelers who predict 1.5 million deaths from global warming each year in 80 years simply ignore this factor. Of course, they cannot use the factor, since it is not possible to predict what technology will bring in that time. But we can be sure it will be profound, and make a massive difference. That is a major reason why you should NEVER make predictions that far ahead.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:55 pm

I responded to everything you've said here and you have not addressed much if any of it. You just keep repeating yourself and claiming your opinion, shared by no one, is common sense. If it was common sense, there'd already be a fallacy that fit your definition. It would be "commonly" known. You could look it up on the internet and find it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:44 pm

Everything, Lausten, has a beginning.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:44 pm
Everything, Lausten, has a beginning.
Which by definition would come long before it is common. What's your IQ again?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:38 am

Exactly.
The thing, Lausten, is that the nowcast fallacy is real, and is a cause for failure of predictions. It is a major reason why people should approach the whole business of making predictions with fear and trembling. Predictions are best done short term only, and only in vague terms. Less chance of being made a fool of then.

Mind you, the prediction of 1.5 million deaths per year in 80 years time is pretty safe. All the people making that prediction will be securely in their graves, and immune to embarrassment.

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Making it better

Post by MikeN » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:53 am

> The average coal burning plant in the USA would be illegal in China because it is too careless with emissions.

You have it backwards. Chinese plants are much less efficient.
The Chinese reductions in emissions are mostly fake, to give talking points to global warmers so they will pass restrictions in their own countries which will benefit China by bringing more factory production and energy purchases to them. They also collect money in the form of carbon emissions credits and green funds, like what some airlines will ask if you want to offset the CO2 from your trip. China actually produces some chemicals just to make money from the destruction of the byproduct HFCs, which are ten thousand to a million times more potent than CO2 as global warming gases. It seems like every year China gets reported to have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, but several years go by, and the numbers are quietly adjusted, and we see increases instead. China's main efforts are to try to reduce real air pollution and not fake CO2 pollution, as US did in the 60s and 70s.

1.5 million deaths, how do they know it is not 1.4 million, 1.6 million, 1 million, 2 million, 4 million, or .5 million?
They can't even agree on how much warming there will be by 2100, with the range of 1.5C-4.5C having been the 'scientific consensus' for more than 40 years. Is three times as much warming going to produce the same number of deaths?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:38 am
Predictions are best done short term only, and only in vague terms. Less chance of being made a fool of then.
So, it's 1940. We can see starvation on the horizon. They put out reports, "a few extra people might die because of wheat diseases, but we can't really say where or exactly how many. Go back to bed." Norman Borlaug never goes to Mexico, no one works tirelessly to improve cross pollination methods. Millions die. But, hey, no one looked foolish.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Making it better

Post by Lausten » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:25 am

MikeN wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:53 am
1.5 million deaths, how do they know it is not 1.4 million, 1.6 million, 1 million, 2 million, 4 million, or .5 million?
They can't even agree on how much warming there will be by 2100, with the range of 1.5C-4.5C having been the 'scientific consensus' for more than 40 years. Is three times as much warming going to produce the same number of deaths?
Are you really that stupid? There is only so much ice. It's not a question of it it will melt, only how quickly. Obviously the quicker it happens, the less time we will have to react. Elementary school children are learning this now.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:15 pm

Lausten wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:25 am
MikeN wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:53 am
1.5 million deaths, how do they know it is not 1.4 million, 1.6 million, 1 million, 2 million, 4 million, or .5 million?
They can't even agree on how much warming there will be by 2100, with the range of 1.5C-4.5C having been the 'scientific consensus' for more than 40 years. Is three times as much warming going to produce the same number of deaths?
Are you really that stupid? There is only so much ice. It's not a question of it it will melt, only how quickly. Obviously the quicker it happens, the less time we will have to react. Elementary school children are learning this now.
It's called "creative accounting, double-counting, etc." You really have to be stupid to attribute most deaths to a single cause. 55 million people pass away on this planet every year, and it's usually due to failing health, which can be a result of a multitude of factors which cause someone's health to decline. Who actually dies as a direct result of global warming? Or any one cause? Believing such tripe is not much different from being a member of the flat earth society.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:46 pm

Actually, its called regression analysis. Revealing an ignorance so deep, it should be painful.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:46 pm
Actually, its called regression analysis. Revealing an ignorance so deep, it should be painful.

That's not what the textbooks say. Where did you get your science degree?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:49 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:23 pm

That's not what the textbooks say. Where did you get your science degree?
Silly x 2.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:03 pm

[
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:49 pm
Silly x 2.
Anyone can force a regression line through a mass of dots on a graph. What you need to research is the coefficient of correlation. Something conveniently left out of alarmist rhetoric.

You're welcome:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Making it better

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:06 pm

Agreed. buh-bye to creative accounting.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Making it better

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:13 pm

Lausten wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:25 am

Are you really that stupid? There is only so much ice. It's not a question of it it will melt, only how quickly. Obviously the quicker it happens, the less time we will have to react. Elementary school children are learning this now.
Wow !

What a truly uneducated thing to say. I cannot believe someone who thinks he knows his subject should reveal so much ignorance.

For your information, most of the ice in Antarctica comes in massive sheets more than two kilometers thick, in areas where the air temperature averages minus 50 Celsius. Some of that ice is more than four kilometers thick. Do you really think that a global air temperature rise of a few degrees is going to melt all that ice ?

Now truly, do you believe that ALL of that ice will melt ?.

I suggest if you are going to make ridiculous statements, you do a little research first.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11723
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Making it better

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:17 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:13 pm
Lausten wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:25 am

Are you really that stupid? There is only so much ice. It's not a question of it it will melt, only how quickly. Obviously the quicker it happens, the less time we will have to react. Elementary school children are learning this now.
Wow !

What a truly uneducated thing to say. I cannot believe someone who thinks he knows his subject should reveal so much ignorance.

For your information, most of the ice in Antarctica comes in massive sheets more than two kilometers thick, in areas where the air temperature averages minus 50 Celsius. Some of that ice is more than four kilometers thick. Do you really think that a global air temperature rise of a few degrees is going to melt all that ice ?

Now truly, do you believe that ALL of that ice will melt ?.

I suggest if you are going to make ridiculous statements, you do a little research first.
They live in a world of half-truths, so they know not what they say and do.
Be thankful the fate of the world is not in their hands.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.