Slashdot Mirror
Climate Modeller Wins $10,000 Wager Against Solar Physicists, Fails To Collect (blogspot.com)
Layzej writes: Back in 2005, solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev made a $10,000 bet that global temperatures, driven primarily by changes in the Sun's activity, would fall over the next decade. The bet would compare the then record hot years between 1998 to 2003 with that between between 2012 and 2017. With temperatures falling from their peak during the 1998 super El-Nino, and solar output continuing to fall, this seemed like a sure bet. The results are now in and all datasets show that climate modeler James Annan is the clear winner.
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
At the time of the wager, Annan had supposed that the reputation of the scientists involved would be enough to ensure payment once the bet was settled. Unfortunately, as was the case with Alfred Russel Wallace's famous 1870 bet against flat-Earthers, the losing parties have refused to pay up.
"More precisely, Bashkirtsev is refusing to pay," writes the climate modeler on his blog, "and Mashnich is refusing to even reply to email.
"With impressive chutzpah, Bashkirtsev proposed we should arrange a follow-up bet which he would promise to honour."
Anyone denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change while at the same time claiming to uphold scientific integrity has none to begin with.
But they still can't answer: What is Winter Sunlight?
You'll never have to deal with those scumbags again, and it only cost you $10k.
If they had paid up, you'd never hear the end of them.
Why would anyone dishonest enough to deny climate change be considered honest enough to honor a wager?
These researchers must be pretty poor. After paying out $10k, all they'd be able to afford to eat is Crow.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
They have their "Arm and Hammer" and they see every problem as a nail requiring hits from their hammer.
Shouldn't that be "sickle and hammer" (agriculture + industry) for Communism? "Arm and Hammer" is the baking soda guys.
Okay, let's discuss. a) Local is not global. b) Global warming leads to more variation, not uniform warming. Look at the polar vortex, for example. That was predicted by models beforehand, as well. c) Warming leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which leads to higher precipitation, including snow when the conditions are right. In other words, you have to show that what is being seen in the global trends and the cherry picked odd local events are both inconsistent with global warming and easily explained by something else. Good luck.
So why the fuck should we care about your anecdote?
Oh, I see. You're one of those jackoffs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
WTF, really?
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
All the AC posters are russian trolls, and if they delete the post., the underlying comments get fucked.
I no longer post to AC's.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
This folks, is what happens to minds, who are only able to bear false witness. Sad.
Loaning someone $20, and them not paying you back is a great way to never deal with them again.
"You still owe me, I'm not giving you shit."
One of my nephews lost out on $1200 worth of car troubles for $20.
Fuck them if they don't pay, he has no currency. (paul simon, if you don't get it.) ... ...
He holds no currency
He is a foreign man
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
They should be shamed and have their reputation ruined.
instead of this physics crap.
[($)]
I didn't realize ShanghaiBill was an AC now. But I'm posting AC myself, so pointing out this obvious fact is now clearly Russian disinformation and you're safe to continue ignoring the obvious.
Carry on, then!
That's also part of the globalist plot. The Arm and Hammer "company" is actually a full-fledged sleeper cell of the USSR, indoctrinating young minds into acceptance of the symbols of socialism.
In the future for such bets, put the money in an escrow account managed by an independent, trust worthy banker. There could be some other way to keep the up front money safe that are possible. There might even be some interest earned over the years.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out. it looks like temperature readings from... somewhere? someone?, hosted by "woodfortrees.org", which seem to support the claims of the blog post. um, okay? who the fuck are these people?
no, i'm not accusing slashdot editors of political bias. that is precluded by hanlon's razor, as they have already proven themselves utterly incompetent.
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
You wanna make a bet? We both pay the middleman NOW. Then the winner gets paid out by the middleman.
No getting out of the bet.
This folks, is what happens to minds, who are only able to bear false witness. Sad.
I've tried to understand the phenomena. I think a lot of it stems from training in youth, or perhaps lack of it. While many religions do many good things, they generally all teach belief in what can't be proven beyond any possible doubt, since that is usually the point. Its a curious skill, because it paves the way to believe things without a factual basis. Those without any training at all, and in particular those that have no desire to look at any problem or situation in detail similarly gain the skill or lack of skill in just believing what is in front of them.
Being part of a tribe exacerbates this, particularly if the tribes major goals are considered threatened by members of an opposing tribe. Things seem to be rejected simply because they are of the other. Indeed it seems quite common to make the other as scary as possible, which further makes it difficult for members of the tribe to consider betraying the tribes ideas or even considering the other. Of course if you add religion back in it just adds to the effect, since many religious people are well used to both compromising for the greater good and blocking out any information that conflict with the "greater truths"
Add in foreign powers that want to crank all of our divisions up to infinity and beyond, plus lots of ways to do it, and you have today. Perhaps 1984 was a bit late, and I doubt we have seen the apogee of it yet, but I think we are in it.
The only cure I see is better correct training in critical thinking, preferably when people are young. The scientific method isn't just for science. You can think, reason, understand, hypothesis, check your hypothesis, etc, etc, on any subject. I think this is also why your see the right push intelligent design, textbook editing, etc. They want to indoctrinate early, since it benefits the tribe. Indeed I think much of it is behind the push for anti-intellectualism for well, much of my lifetime I suppose.
In short, saying we need to teach people to think more critically, to be more skeptical, to always test beliefs and theories, is easier said than done. First they would need to win a lot of elections to even have a chance to do that kind of change, which would of course freak out the other side causing even more escalation.
It is a rather curious thing. The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed, which come to think of it, brings us full circle, since that state is exactly the state that makes it easier for foreign powers and well really anyone to manipulate the populous, with the ongoing manipulation from well a lot of sources making it near impossible to take the steps to stop the ongoing manipulation.
I think he's suggesting that the problem is stinky refrigerators. A bit of Arm and Hammer might do some good.
A lot of people (here, especially) reject the 'appeal to expert' logical fallacy. It takes some form of 'experts say' and related. They want to see the data and decide for themselves. Whenever they hear an appeal to expert, it turns them off. But if I don't have the time or expertise to delve into the data, one can accept suitably formed appeals.
Some part of the response to climate change does involve power grabs and redistribution.
It is important to separate the question of whether there is global warming or anthropogenic global warming, and the responses to it.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals...
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Look, if you're going to put all you money on sun activity and say that the temps will drop then you are denying human activity is a factor. Otherwise you're not very good scientist with modeling. You cannot bet on temps dropping without being a climate science denier. The two are mutually exclusive.
Solar activity is in decline, so he thought it would be a good bet he'd win. I don't think he was denying climate change, he simply did the math and thought the solar decline would overcompensate for the global warming and was way way wrong.
Anyone who thought he'd pay is gullible. It's like "I'll pay 1 million dollars if you have Native American ancestry in your DNA", it's hyperbole design to seem like you're confident, when actually you're a lying sack of shit who conspires with murderer friends of your son in law, to coverup a taped vivisection of a living Washington Post journalist.
See, how "not evil" he is, when you have Jared helping someone coverup dissecting a living human being, to compare with, this other stuff is really minor.
Is that what the news on slashdot is now... every time two random dudes make a bet, if one does not pay up, it's an article on slashdot?
On the plus side, there is going to be a lot of articles
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
this summer has been the coolest and wettest I can remember in at least 60 years or more.
So what?
He's heard these facts millions of times before. Why do you think telling him once more will help?
People like him are just NPCs. Ignore them.
Why did you post that as AC? It was excellent.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
... Or a Nazi ... Or a misogynist
This NPC needs a better script. The upgraded NPC's now post links to their favorite well funded science PACs where there's "data".
Russia hasn't been communist for nearly 30 years... They've adopted the most vile form of communism, handed to them by the god bless-d USA. I would guess you're still talking about HRC even though she lost the election two years ago as well.
In the UK it was the longest, overall hottest summer (although not containing the single hottest day, which was in 2003) I remember since I was a child. Since my childhood memory of 1976 cannot be fully relied on, possibly ever. Luckily there is also an instrumental record that could confirm this.
Armand Hammer was associated with the USSR, but that's not the same as Arm and Hammer, but causes confusion
Degeneracy spawns communism. And as degenerate as the US has become, we'll be headed towards communism too.
You have to be a pathetic, low-self-esteem, disrespectful, probably-in-denial idiot to ignore others' sensible requests. Same ideas apply to those stupid enough to think that generic, hypocrite, saying-nothing, dishonest communication is welcome anywhere. All of them belong to the same type of low-life forms with a tremendous misconception about very basic things like the exact value of their contributions to others.
Logically, I don't know the specifics and that behaviour might have even made a bit of sense under the given conditions (after having tried hard enough to reason with that person, it was undoubtedly proven that no communication was possible). But, in principle, my opinion of a person doing something on these lines is quite bad, because of the punctual lack of respect and, more importantly, the personality traits (defects) which usually implies.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Seems like Trump is a Russia then as he's not paying $1m to charity for losing the Elizabeth Warren's DNA test claim - then again, he is just a dishonourable human being anyway
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed
The only difference in that regard between the far right and the far left is that the far right wants to keep you so uninformed that you don't realize you're uninformed, while the far left wants to "reeducate" you to the point that you're convinced that you're informed. The end result is essentially the same.
Meanwhile, here in Sweden, we've had the longest and warmest late spring/summer/early autumn on record, and we've still not had the first hard frost we should normally have had 2-3 weeks ago.
You were saying...?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Threaten to gift the marker to the local mafioso. I guarantee payment (with interest) will be in your account by morning.
I apologise for already posting in this thread, so that I cannot contribute to a +5, Flamebait, just to piss off Jerry's fanboi with mod points.
Maybe next time.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Every politician in the world must be russian then.
Amen, brother! I have never really understood how anyone could consider blind faith a virtue.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That's not exactly what happened but you keep thinking that because explaining complicated things to simple minded people like you is far more complicated.
Democracy spawns communism. While it was nominally communism (as North Korea is nominally a democratic republic) what the Russians had was just another breed of corrupt totalitarianism.
As for the US, I guess it depends on how democratic you think the voting process actually is.
Yes, 1 possible ancestor out of hundreds or thousands makes her an indian. Who knew libs would take oneâ"drop fetishism so far?
Warren also went on TV saying her paternal grandparents were racistly against their son marrying her 97%+ white grandmother and tried to forbid it. As if they could even tell.
What a lying fakeâ"identity piece of trash.
They are deniers, moron,as are you. Anything But Carbon is the denier mantra.
So they whinge that the temperature has gone down over 12 years while CO2 levels rose. That ONLY makes sense when they are insisting that the climate is being driven by only one variable.
They then scream IT'S THE SUN!!!!! because that too pretends that the climate is a single variable system.
So, yeah, every denier pretty much insists it is a single variable system, they all use either one of those two "arguments" to rebut AGW science.
So thare is no nazi (so where are the people who claim they ARE nazis coming from?), there is no russian troll (so why all the proof from criminal investigations?), there are no misogynists (so why so many people in poer tell women to STFU when asking a question but NOT when a man then stands up and asks the same question?).
Tell me, does ANYONE exist in your world?
or even reverses the result. Just in the recent year, and entire continent (Australia) worth of data was discovered to have been tempered with.
Why does such a vertain theory need so much data fraud?
The term in context means that he deniers AGW. For a group of morons who whinge "Stop calling me holocaust deniers" when called a denier, you are REALLY quick to proclaim denial must mean something else.
But only those who want to believe believe either in the facts of AIG or the facts of your "scientists" that proclaim the temps have been tampered with.
They whinged that the UHI was causing the warming, yet when the effect of UHI is removed, they proclaimed it was "tampering". Ensuring that there will be no data they accept, except ones that give the answer they want.
Just like AIG.
Gee this sounds like what the Democrat controlled South used to say - one drop of black blood made you black and you couldn't vote.
That makes it a pure ad hom. And a genetic fallacy too: if it's "from the left" it "must be wrong".
No, they would not have made the bet if they merely underestimated it.
The far left are almost nonexistent, whilst the far right is pretty much ALL OF THE RIGHT.
A murderer of one kitten is not equal to Pol Pot, and anyone pretending that such disparity is meaningless in either case is a lying partisan fuckwit.
"Blind faith" is a virtue during the hypothesis step of the scientific method. After that all bets are off.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it every single time I run across it.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You cannot run a test if your equipment is incapable of measuring the thing you are testing.
But the intellectual tools of empiricism are adequate to establish the fact of a physical universe. And it that very fact which demands we answer the question of WHY. Why is all of this here? Where did it all come from? What's the point? You cannot say "it came from nothing and means nothing", because it is SOMETHING.
The way that Paul puts it is, "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for, and the certainty of what we do not see." These are philosophical commitments. They are conclusions about the meaning and purpose of life, a meaning which transcends our ability to see physically.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
You don't get to proclaim that someone saying you're wrong that "you made the claim I am wrong, prove it". Though that IS what morons of all stripes (especially religious nuts, and libertarianism and free market rightwing neocon ideologies are: pure religion) do.
The far left are almost nonexistent
lol
As opposed to one of these jackoffs?
SHE DIDNT LOSE!! She won the popular vote! Thats what matters! We live in a Democracy not a disney movie!
In context it means "denies AGW", or do you think that AGW is not climate change?
Bet something normal like $20 or a steak dinner. No need to wave your cock around over these science bets, unless... It was all for the publicity.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Was the bet with Galina?
It could have been a "woman's bet "
which works like this:
If I win you pay, if you win I don't pay because "reasons"
Meanwhile, here in Sweden, we've had the longest and warmest late spring/summer/early autumn on record, and we've still not had the first hard frost we should normally have had 2-3 weeks ago.
You were saying...?
Weather is not climate.
Frankly, I can't see any difference between "outside the limits of any such proof" and "can't be proven."
Like most believers, you use rhetoric because logic is beyond you.
there is not one society that I know of that really will deal with a known welcher
Not even Wales? Their whole culture is built around welsh. To them, actions come before facts so often that the verb comes first in the sentence.
Can you have all three if you replace the banker with a credit unioner?
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it
Hate to break it to you but when you 'disagree" with a mere objective observation, your whole premise has been shown to be based on delusion.
Face it; you're either mildly insane or very stupid...
A. there never was a bet; he said he would make a bet if they were debating 2020
B. he didn't lose, she did;
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof.
This is clearly false. The god of most religions, including all the Christian varieties, is certainly within limits of proof of existence.
If a deity materialized a fifty mile long floating sign in the sky saying "I exist", and invited modern day Thomas to stick his test swabs in His wounds, the existence most certainly would be proven.
The claim that gods are outside the limits of proofs is contingent on the god not doing anything that is verifiable or that can be ascribed to other causes. In itself, that is heavy evidence (although not proof) that gods either do not exist, are impotent, or don't give a fuck.
The claim is not just about global warming being a problem, it's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming
Let's take each one at a time:
Catastrophic: If the global warming causes no real harm then it's real hard to get real concerned about it. As it is there's claims of ice melting, sea levels rising, shifts in rain and sun affecting plant survivability, and so forth. The climate models show that the sea level rises very slowly, we can manage that with just normal maintenance on civil projects and changes in building codes. Shifts in plant growth patterns are also slow enough for farmers to adapt and natural resource management projects to protect the wildlife. There will be nothing "catastrophic" about this as we have plenty of time to adapt.
Anthropogenic: Even if this is a catastrophic warming event that is happening we'd have to prove that humans are causing it to prove we can do anything about it. If humans aren't causing it then we get to my previous point of having to adapt. Well, then let's plan for adaptation whether we are causing it or not, because that seems like a wise thing to do. If there is proof that human activity is causing the problem then we should be looking at every effort to reduce the production of what is believed to be the primary factor, CO2. With so many nations abandoning nuclear power, the lowest CO2 producing energy source we have today, then it seems that they are not taking the problem seriously.
Global: One claim of previously recorded events on climate change is that they were not global, merely local to the places in which they were recorded. One is the "little ice age" that appeared and was recorded in things like ice skating on the Thames River. Part of the problem of proving that this is a global warming event is that there is not a lot of historical data that is global. We might have a lot of data from 1970 onward when weather satellites came to regular use. Data from 1880 or so was of good quality by national weather services in North America and Europe. Without good historical data its not only difficult to prove this is global but also anthropogenic and catastrophic. If this happened before and humanity survived then we can do so again with our advances in technology and infrastructure.
Warming: Stop with the nonsense of calling it "climate change", it's warming that is the problem and so call it that. By calling it something else only muddies the waters. If it's heat trapping gasses that are the problem then it's warming that's the concern.
So, is it warming? Probably. Is it global? Also quite likely. Is it caused by human activity? Perhaps, but with the "pause" in warming for a decade or two that is quite suspect. It does show that other natural variations cannot be ignored and can quite possibly overwhelm any human caused effects. Is it catastrophic? Not at all likely. Such variations have happened before by natural causes and humanity has adapted. Humanity is certainly capable of adapting again.
Here's how I see it, no matter what we will have to be prepared to adapt to any climate change. That's not just because the climate changes but also because nations all over the world are not taking catastrophic anthropogenic global warming seriously. We see this not only in European nations abandoning nuclear power but nations in Africa and Asia demanding the freedom to burn locally sourced coal and oil for their economic development and independence. What's the plan if they don't stop emitting CO2? Declare war on them and bomb their factories?
Unless you are ready to wage war on getting other nations to avert catastrophic anthropogenic global warming the only thing you can do is reduce your own emissions and make plans to adapt to the coming changes.
The question is, can you see?
This if anyone was cheating it was the people reporting the temperature data.
Exactly! Just like people who report seeing the curvature of the Earth.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
Religions make absolute statements about the physical world such as is one must not allow a 13 year-old girl, victim of a violent rape, access to the "morning-after pill" but demand that she bear the rapist's child, or that terrorists bombing of infidel civilians is a God-commanded action.
Religions have been the source of much worldly evil when they leave leave philosophy to make religious dictums.
(This written by a follower of a 2000 year old Jewish heretic whose philosophy was perverted into a religion by his groupies.)
We actually live in a federal constitutional republic:
1) Federal: Federated, consisting of several parts functioning as one.
2) Constitutional: Based on a constitution as the foundation of the law.
3) Republic: We elect representatives who vote on the issues of government.
Occasionally states will put issues to referendum, and that is an instance of pure democracy. But our form of government is not pure democracy.
Lots of places with Earth temp but I see no data on Sun temp yearly. Would be nice to see the two charts side by side. All I see is Earth temp and them saying it went up. Nothing about if maybe they were wrong about the Sun temps going down and maybe that forecast was wrong and the Sun temp went up.
Other people than trolls and bots post as AC.
For example: People who don't want their credentials associated with the work computer post AC.
Trump wanted to use DNA, so tough cookies. That just means Trump is going to skip paying yet another bill he created for himself. This shouldnâ(TM)t be surprising since he tried quite often to avoid paying everyone from banks to regular contractors. The smaller the contractor, the better, since it meant the losses might bankrupt them and heâ(TM)d get all the work and materials free! I suggest every Trump supporter skip paying their bills and just point at the president when asked why they think they shouldnâ(TM)t have to pay up.
Most Native Americans, myself included, donâ(TM)t just use DNA. In fact it is possible that someone who is lily white can be considered Native. We usually base it off of cultural upbringing, hence why my friend (who is as white as his Finnish first name and ancestry would suggest) who was raised from 2 in a mixed Native/Finnish family has all the rights of a Native on tribal land. Since he was raised within the tribe, he is considered of the tribe. Conversely some people who are 1/4 Native by blood (genetics) arenâ(TM)t in many cases because they donâ(TM)t know the tribal history/customs.
On the contrary. We had been heading back into a glacial period over the last 6000 years... until the industrial revolution when something happened to abruptly reverse the trend.
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population. If that's the bar to clear to claim tribal ancestry then it means she's not even close to being unique in her claims.
All Warren produced was a DNA test with inconclusive results, based on DNA from south american DNA samples. If she has a native american ancestor then it is not Cherokee as she claimed. She opened the door to ridicule with her claims in the first place, she could have dropped it and people likely would have forgotten about it in time. She proved her own lie with her DNA test, and now it will not go away.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If you yourself claim these results are inconclusive (which is itself debatable), I do not think you can then also claim (in the next sentence no less) they conclude that she is not related to the Cherokee. I also wonder how much you have studied up on how genetics works over several generations, but your argumentation here suggests youâ(TM)re more interested in a specific outcome than an accurate assessment.
The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.
If you look up "Scientific Wager" in google, chances are at least a couple of the top ten results reference this bet. For example, here and here.
...and continue to make wildly wrong predictions vs. mainstream climate science. News at 11.
Seriously though, climate denialism (or more accurately, climate conspiracism) is the most dangerous form of denialism/conspiracism known to man. Anti-vaxxers, holocaust denialists, they're horribly offensive and can cause greater short-term harm, but in the medium/long term they're mildly annoying pissants compared to the planet-baking, civilization-ruining potential of climate denialism. Nobody holds as much potential to sabotage humanity's future as these assholes. And when you get down to it, they're doing it solely out of partisan tribalism these days - even their arguments about economic harm have become a fully laughable farce as renewable energy has become the cheaper and and more domestically sourced form of energy, and the bills for global warming have begun to show up in the form of frequent powerful storms hitting the US and refugee crises around the world.
All they're accomplishing is keeping fossil company CEOs in the money instead of renewable company CEOs under the presumption that the fossil company CEOs will be more conservative. Which might be correct as a self-fulfilling prophecy, since they've made themselves the enemies of renewable energy - even if a renewable energy CEO is a Randroid who would benefit from wealth transfers to the 1% and the general cyberpunkification of the world that conservatism brings, he's not going to donate to the party that wants his business dead.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The "warming" is actually more like ...
Not even close. Even over 50 years the trend is closer to 0.2/decade:
GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.177 per decade over the last 50 years.
BEST Least squares trend line; slope = 0.178 per decade over the last 50 years.
But of course this has continued to accelerate so over the last couple decades you get:
GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.21 per decade over the last 20 years.
BEST Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
RSS Satellite data (which doesn't extend back 50 years) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
To be fair, crony capitalism is indeed the most vile form of communism.
Help me out here. I know that Yale used Elizabeth Warren to push up their diversity metrics, which is a shitty thing to do, but did she ever get anything for it, apart from a cool piece of family folklore and a stupid nickname from POTUS?
And your assertion requires you "comprehend" maths that isn't even there. NOWHERE is the probabilities given. The deniermoron "model" didn't use CO2 levels, only the sun.
Funny, I have read my Bible and can't find any mention of a "morning-after pill." Is that a Mormon thing?
How can you be so reasonable -- this is SLASHDOT!
You're obviously NOT thinking of the CHILDREN!
Quit arguing against the evidence because you don't like the solutions. It's asinine. The rest of the world is actually willing to take action on this: you are ignoring this so you don't have to support political action.
Even the Cherokee Nation is POed over Warren's outrageous claim: http://www.cherokee.org/News/S...
Quite.
Don't move the goal posts. The issue was whether or not she had one distant Native American ancestor. She does.
I don't expect him to ever pay, though. He never pays money he owes, and he always lies about what he said. His word is as worthless as his deals are.
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population.
Yet that is all she ever claimed: that she had one distant ancestor who was Native American. Or even that that's what the story in her family was, and she wasn't sure. She's not claiming she's Native American now, she's just showing that that family story turns out to be true.
But of course people need to move the goal posts.
âoeIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â
â Epicurus (341â"270 BC)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand.
But that's just sophistry.
First, you're awfully loose with the definitions of "can't". It's either possible to prove (and thereby disprove) the existence of God, or it isn't. The 'ability' or 'inability' is the same thing, since you're asserting that it's what determines 'can' or 'can't.
Second, there are claims that certainly CAN be proven or disproven; any interaction with the physical world, for example, man claims of which do in fact exist. There isn't any credible evidence of this interaction.
Third, if your claim is that it's impossible to determine whether or not God exists because there's no way of demonstrating whether he does, then whether or not God exists becomes utterly irrelevant.
He sang it after all. Paul Simon just played a sax.
I think a better way to put it is that there is no experiment which could falsify the hypothesis that there is a God. Certainly none known currently, or surely many people would have run it. Thus, the existence of God is not a scientific question.
Both parties should put the bet into escrow with the winner taking all.
What do you expect from a couple of Russians? Their culture is steeped in dishonesty.
This is a common, and quite ignorant, argument often heard from Christians. It's a dumb argument. Firstly, proving that God exists is trivial. You produce him. Measure him. Publish a report on this. Boom. His existence is proven. You are correct that his non-existence can not be proven. Non-existence can't be proven by anyone. You can't prove that pink unicorns that go invisible as soon as someone tries to observe them do not exist. The fact that we can't prove they do not exist does not make it sane to think they do.
Now, if it is impossible to prove that God exists, then he doesn't. You see, if it impossible to prove he exists, then he can not be measured, directly or indirectly. If he can't be measured or the result of his existing can not be measured that means that God can not have any kind of impact on anything measurable in this universe. Remember, we can not measure gravity, but we can measure the effect it has on the universe, so we knows it exists, not by observing it, but by observing its effects. If God can not have an impact on the universe, then he doesn't exist. End of story.
Believing God exists is a mental illness. Prevalent, but an illness still.
Sigh. Warren doesn't have 1/1024th native American ancestry. We have no idea how much she has. This is not how DNA testing works. The only thing your post shows is that you are ignorant as well as retarded. I hope you get well soon, while recovering from your partial encephalectomy, read the paragraph below to cure some of your ignorance.
So, the problem is that you are ignorant. You are probably semi-illiterate, and your partial encephalectomy has made it difficult for anyone to cure your moronic ignorance.