100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > redonkulous
|
Topic:
AGW
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Fri 03/12/10 04:16 PM
|
|
Climate deniers are good at smoke and mirror tactics to conceal their lack of science based evidence, its all too typical to start a conversation about global warming and end up no where near a scientific topic.
I have a couple of questions for any global warming deniers I want answered before this conversation gets going. --Is there a point where atmospheric concentrations of C02 would effect the climate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Fri 03/12/10 04:08 PM
|
|
'Intelligent Design', like 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', is an interesting oxymoron - and neither of them understand (or correctly use) science. ID, however, makes an interesting pretense of using 'creation science', which presents its conclusions first and then tortures the 'science' to fit them. They neither allow nor tolerate dissent (e.g., AlGore's 'presentations' about 'AGW'). They advance 'premises' which can NOT be tested, and claim 'results' which are non-reproducible. They're the modern equivalent of 'Elmer Gantry' and espouse a 'philosophy' which can best be summed up as 'Do as I say, not as I do'. They're the (to use a phrase) 'modern Luddites' in the 'religious' sense of the word. They embarrass themselves with their ignorance of REAL science, and they insult those of us who understand it. A mind IS a terrible thing ... Name your argument against AGW, check your facts, check the following website, find the contradiction, hammer out the details and come back to me. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ See, your problem came when I took you up on your challenge ... the 'Woody Guthrie Award' ... right ... it's just one more Leftist blogger who's in the tank for The Gorbacle and his crowd ... sorry, you lose. You're just using the old 'Lies In, Lies Out' formula ... just like 'Dr.' Goebbels ... http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/ Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA's temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU's embattled data, as has been claimed. March 10, 2010 - by Charlie Martin Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database. These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data. Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007. The reporter never published it. ————————————— There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four. They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset. Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available. But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press. In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following: Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. … We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. … Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results. This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS: [For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. … It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise. Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data. The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well. These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming. You have not provided a shred of data, just called into question data sets without providing anything. I am sorry, but you will have to do better then that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Intelligent Design', like 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', is an interesting oxymoron - and neither of them understand (or correctly use) science. ID, however, makes an interesting pretense of using 'creation science', which presents its conclusions first and then tortures the 'science' to fit them. They neither allow nor tolerate dissent (e.g., AlGore's 'presentations' about 'AGW'). They advance 'premises' which can NOT be tested, and claim 'results' which are non-reproducible. They're the modern equivalent of 'Elmer Gantry' and espouse a 'philosophy' which can best be summed up as 'Do as I say, not as I do'. They're the (to use a phrase) 'modern Luddites' in the 'religious' sense of the word. They embarrass themselves with their ignorance of REAL science, and they insult those of us who understand it. A mind IS a terrible thing ... Name your argument against AGW, check your facts, check the following website, find the contradiction, hammer out the details and come back to me. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Thu 03/11/10 05:10 PM
|
|
Sometimes I wonder what these threads would be like if everyone said exactly what they think. You must specify what kind of logic, and why what you are referring to cannot be constructed logically, and use mathematics to explain yourself, please show your work. I predict lots of play acting, not much substance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Thu 03/11/10 04:39 PM
|
|
(1) Why? (2) How? *1) Because when just about anyone talks about Free Will they are referring to making choices that could have been otherwise. 2)Random choices are not choices of the will, they are choices from randomness, like spinning an arrow on the table to point to the dish you will eat . . I can safely say that does not require free will, you could automate a computer (or create a machine) to decide that and most everyone agrees scripts (Machines) are not conscious and do not have free will. So a random choice machine is clearly not conscious, and consciousness is clearly not random. A willed thing is a desired thing, a random thing is without desire, without want, without order. I am unclear how anyone can make randomness requisite, in fact a causal mechanism in the process of will. *Free Will requires things to be changeable. If events must play out a certain way then indeed there is no free will. If I throw a brick at your head, and you duck, and you could not have chosen to not duck, then it was inevitable. If you do have a choice as to whether you will duck or not, then it was evitable. I posit somethings are evitable, and other things inevitable, I do not see how randomness is causally required for that to be so. I think the whole randomness = free will is just a lame attempt to say QM solves the consciousness problem, which clearly no solution has been achieved, in fact no consensus has been reached by the high priests of physics as to if the ontological causative actions of QM are even really random. There are three camps, the we dont knows, the its hidden determinism, and the its magic camps. I am a computer/software engineer, I do not pretend to know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Thu 03/11/10 04:19 PM
|
|
Man this thread is full of armchair science, and armchair philosophy.
Dare I even engage? I think not . . . I think the standard for establishing fact from fiction is a little too blurry. I mean this thread is titled: Evidence . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.wahm.com/forum/cosmetics-skin-care-companies-130/452681-nightingale-facial-bird-poop-facials-seen-oprah.html
I just love seeing humorous snake oil ads like this, at least the comedic value give it some actual value. Whats really funny is they claim its a natural enzyme . . . its not an enzyme at all, Guanine is an amino acid base. Its this word salad endorsed by famous people crap (literally) that is just so inane. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What is an atheist?
|
|
Who cares call me whatever you want.
I do not hold beliefs in bronze age mythology, or navelfocusingchigooglequantumfluxmysticmassage therepy being a cure all. I just don't buy into things that cannot be demonstrated to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Now here's an odd thought
|
|
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. That's one of my favorite quotes from NASA. Name any piece of evidence that could prove the absence of something? I will not hold my breath. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Acupuncture
|
|
Well a few problems exit here, first acupuncture does not link up with nerves. They link up with a fictitious meridian system.
What is interesting is that MANY studies have been done, the majority use controls such as fake needles that do not pierce the skin, but from the patients perspective feel the same, they also place both fake needles, and real needles in spots that do not map to the Chinese meridian "system". What is interesting is that statistically there is no difference in each of these methods. Which indicates that each has about as much efficacy as each other, which is right about at the placebo level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 03/03/10 05:15 PM
|
|
I have not read these studies, I do not know what controls where put in place, I do not know the sample size, nor really anything about these studies.
But let me say that studies based on complex issues are linear in nature and do not capture the truth in and of themselves. For complex topics it takes many well designed studies and then a meta analysis must be done to merge the data, or a few very large studies with strict controls in place. There is NO ethical way to create such a large and well controlled trial on human beings. That being said, my personal anecdote follows. My parents tried to discipline me, but I was far too strong willed to give a crap about a little swat. At age 10 I was 5'9 150 ilbs and my dad was smart enough to know that I would take whatever punishment was coming and continue to do what I wanted, when I wanted. My parents are very intelligent people, they knew spanking was not going to work to discipline me nor my brother, even at really young ages, 3,4,5,6 we where more likely to pretend and then find a way to do what we wanted (I still remember every year of my early life me and my brother getting together before Christmas to go on a gift hunt and find our presents stash point, open them and then hide the evidence). We where tuff and savvy kids and it would have taken near death by beating or worse to change our behavior through physical punishments. So instead they appealed to our intelligence and our fierce strong willed determination. They set many small goals we could achieve to receive rewards that we wanted. Failure to achieve the goals set you back on getting what you wanted. I worked for my dads company from age 12, and worked hard to get the things I wanted, paid for with my own sweat. THESE where the things that shaped us into good kids, no threat of violence could do for us what respect and reward created. Honestly this has created in me the idea that only the ignorant, emotionally incapable and unimaginative resort to physical violence when a situation is not already physical in nature. (Dont get me wrong I deserved the slaps I got, but I think those where only the points of frustration where my parents could not control their emotions, it was not the moments where good parenting happened, it achieved nothing and only set back progress they had made with more intellectual approaches.) Edit: I also train dogs for a living, and I think resorting to physical punishment is completely counter productive. _X_ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Wed 03/03/10 04:54 PM
|
|
The earthquake has cause our days to be shorten, Do the Bible agree ? Matthew: 24: 22 . 
Also how many earthquakes have occurred before, and since the bible was written? Did you know that the measurements to determine the length of days based on the procession of the earth where known almost a thousand years before the bible was written? I think this is more good ole cherry picking, quote mining, and smashing square objects into round holes. Edit: Here I will quote it for you. New International Version (©1984)
I am sorry, but this is NOT the bible saying ANYTHING about earthquakes causing a change in the wobble of the earth shortening the days. In fact the only consistency is shorter days, the how and the why are completely different.
If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. New Living Translation (©2007) In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God's chosen ones. English Standard Version (©2001) And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. New American Standard Bible (©1995) "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. International Standard Version (©2008) If those days had not been limited, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be limited. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) If God does not reduce the number of those days, no one will be saved. But those days will be reduced because of those whom God has chosen. King James Bible And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. American King James Version And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. American Standard Version And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Bible in Basic English And if those days had not been made short there would have been no salvation for any, but because of the saints those days will be made short. Douay-Rheims Bible And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Darby Bible Translation and if those days had not been cut short, no flesh had been saved; but on account of the elect those days shall be cut short. English Revised Version And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Webster's Bible Translation And except those days should be shortened, there would no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Weymouth New Testament And if those days had not been cut short, no one would escape; but for the sake of God's own People those days will be cut short. World English Bible Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be shortened. Young's Literal Translation And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the chosen, shall those days be shortened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Acupuncture
|
|
Science Based Medicine weighs in on a recent research paper that shows positive results for Acupuncture in the treatment of depression.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4065#more-4065 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 03/02/10 08:17 PM
|
|
Your driving down the road, your mind is a bit distracted and you think back and cannot remember the details of the road, you know you where aware of the road and the things around you, you would have reacted had a car pulled out, but cannot remember, you where conscious . . . right?
Well if you where conscious did you just forget? Which thought is more unsettling? Here is where function and meaning start to get a bit trashed. The word conscious is to blame. Clearly how memory interacts with ones awareness is something to be fleshed out a bit. Many studies have been done, and offer strange examples of the canny bit of wiring called the mind. Some studies use flashing lights or taps up the arm, which reveals that sometimes a bit of stimulus might get erased very quickly to make sense of something. Memory and awareness do not live in separate domains the brain mixes and matches in several ways to end up doing what it needs to do, survive in a fast paced world where bricks need to be ducked, something tapping on your arm is probably crawling up it and things flashing in sequence look like solid movement, brown paper trash bags blowing across the street in low light almost always look at first glance like a brown critter running. Evolution has wired us in specific ways to meet the world head on. The brain works at different levels, different bits of grey matter have specific functions and how each region is wired to its neighbors have a dramatic effect on cognition, this does not imply a separateness however, its the shared regions that seem to active at the same time that makes the bag of tricks of consciousness. An example is the difference between an image and the concept of the image. Such as the image of the number 5, the concept of ! ! ! ! ! things such as the 5 exclamation marks, and say the color red. These are three different things, an image of 5, the concept of 5, and the color red, normal minds deal with it seamlessly. There are neural conditions where the part of the brain that responds to color is wired into the part that deals in the image reference of numbers, another variation is where the color is mapped to the concept. Many other variations of Synesthesia exist as well. People with such a state of mind will perceive color when they see a number, perhaps red 5's. What is also interesting is that in many people who have symptoms of synethesia also tend to deal in metaphor, or concept in different ways, and tend to be more artistic possibly becuase of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hy7oOhHxk This guy is dynamite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
|
|
Its a personal decision the standards we each create for the justification of beliefs. I feel a structure that is amenable to demonstrable analysis is a wholly stronger position than one not so well understood or communicated. Well in mathematics the term rational is distinct. Objective. Knowable. Exact. Logic is the overarching name of the various systems by which rational conclusions may be reached. (well then there is fuzzy logic, which explains not so accurate things accurately hhehe) If beliefs are strictly to be based on irrational, illogical structures of thought then only loose approximations are the best you can have, only inaccuracies shall you know, only mixtures shall you have, never shall knowledge by your guide. Rare the person is that experiences life through these strangely colored lenses. The colloquial term is crazy. We all share to some minor degree these structures, but the exception instead of the rule. Hyper rationality may bore the many but it makes the few, the scientists, all the more accurate. Amen the diversity of humanity. Rationality alone would fall flat on its face. There would be absolutely no progress without imagination. Perhaps you are referring to the distinction between objective and subjective, but then that is not the same thing as rational and irrational. Categorically different really. That would be a great question for you to answer. No, I am not referring to objective and subjective. Imagination is very often slapped down by the rational mind and made into a dirty word. I think good fiction needs a balance of being close enough to make good sense, and not to close to mess with the flow. hehe. I think most of life is the same, none of us can be professors of everything, so we have to settle for a threshold of accuracy. The nice thing about beliefs is that they are easily changed if one has the will. I use to believe wood peckers where irreducibly complex. :- ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Religion and IQ
|
|
Critical thinking, withholding acceptance in the truth of a given idea goes hand and hand with agnostic atheism.
Indoctrination is a POWERFUL technique for establishing ideas early in the lives of very intelligent people. Honestly I think religions would nearly disappear entirely in the population of IQ>100 if parents would not indoctrinate there children. Skepticism is only ineffective in keenly intelligent people when a belief is set outside of critical thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to cherry pick the bible pretty heavily to end up with anything compatible with western values.
Its become the norm for so many its not even noticed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why fear God?
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 03/02/10 03:57 PM
|
|
"Why Fear God"
Because there are a bunch of books that describe him/her as pretty juvenile, mean, abusive, and irrational entity. Dont know if you have heard of it, but a pretty popular one is called the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is the end of time here?
|
|
Jesus said within the lifetime of the people he was directly speaking to the end would come.
YEAAA . . . . So now that is past us . . . . can we submit our cult resume's to a life cult instead of these dreary death cults? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Tue 03/02/10 03:50 PM
|
|
Its a personal decision the standards we each create for the justification of beliefs. I feel a structure that is amenable to demonstrable analysis is a wholly stronger position than one not so well understood or communicated. Well in mathematics the term rational is distinct. Objective. Knowable. Exact. Logic is the overarching name of the various systems by which rational conclusions may be reached. (well then there is fuzzy logic, which explains not so accurate things accurately hhehe) If beliefs are strictly to be based on irrational, illogical structures of thought then only loose approximations are the best you can have, only inaccuracies shall you know, only mixtures shall you have, never shall knowledge by your guide. Rare the person is that experiences life through these strangely colored lenses. The colloquial term is crazy. We all share to some minor degree these structures, but the exception instead of the rule. Hyper rationality may bore the many but it makes the few, the scientists, all the more accurate. Amen the diversity of humanity. Rationality alone would fall flat on its face. There would be absolutely no progress without imagination. Perhaps you are referring to the distinction between objective and subjective, but then that is not the same thing as rational and irrational. Categorically different really. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
