What part of "pointless and closed" were you unable to understand?
It must be part where you expect me to care about your declarations.
Do I need to be more explicit about why I believe you are not worth more of my time?
Well then, you should try backing up your words with actions.
The truth would require rudeness, and I'm not even campaigning to be president.
Oh, of course it would. When you've got no facts, no evidence, and no logic to back you up, what are you left with other than a bad attitude and insults?
Yes, you have convinced me you are fanatical and willing to repeat yourself.
That's what it says in my signature, though I have to say that disagreeing with your incompetent analysis of the situation hardly counts as repeating myself, unless of course, you are suck puppet, in which I could see where being shot down twice for ignorant blathering feels like "repeating".
I could extend my responses, but there was no evidence of anything recognizable as sincerity or curiosity, so you have also convinced me that would be a waste of time and keystrokes.
Actually, I find it doubtful that you could extend your responses. All you seem to have is accusations that professional pollsters are either less competent than you, who once studied polling in university before dropping out of your sociology program, or so corrupt that they provide poll results that match whatever the client requests. You have offered no evidence other than your own general opinions to support either case. Like the poster, I first responded to, you seem to be suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect where you know just enough about the topic to be very confident that you are completely right about everything that you don't know.
Or perhaps I should apologize for writing at a level that is too difficult for you?
Oh I understood everything you wrote, but I am not sure that you did because if you had you would have understood my counter-arguments. Frankly, you should be apologizing for your disgraceful conduct and for wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.
Currently 1 in 25 American children (yes: American, because that's the only place with an insane inoculation frequency) falls prey to an autism spectrum disorder.
That comment set off my bullshit detector, and the CDC says it's about 1 in 68.
My first degree included sociology and I studied quite a bit about polling. I even followed up with math before switching to computer science for my second degree. So I'm telling you [tbannist] to stop projecting your ignorance or bias.
So, are you a sock-puppet account for meta-monkey? Or are you just jumping on the "polling isn't accurate because I don't like the results" bandwagon?
Short summary: It is quite easy to deliver any poll results you are being paid for.
I would strongly suspect that vast majority of polls are paid for accurate results. In the case of political campaigns, for example, they may only release the results of favourable polls, but deliberately inaccurate polls seem like a waste of money. It far cheaper to simply choose the poll(s) that other people have paid for that most resemble the result you want and trumpet those. Also, few people are going to believe a poll that the campaign paid for that produces wildly different results from everyone other poll. Without a sound procedure and definite reasons for the discrepancies, it would be immediately be dismissed as paid-for-results and it would damage the credibility of the polling organization that produced the results.
The hardest thing is to produce an honest poll that gives you meaningful insight into any deep issue.
There's a qualitative different between biased results and deliberately dishonest results. Most polls have some degree of bias and we can compare polls to each other and to election results to see how accurate they and develop and estimate of how biased the poll is and in which direction. But meta-monkey made the claim that they don't even try to be accurate until the last week before the election and if you believe he is correct, then you're also an ignorant fool.
The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.
As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.
The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?
Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened."
There's nearly a dozen women who say differently.
He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence?
How about when he suggested that "second ammendment types" could kill Clinton to prevent her from passing any gun control laws? How about the way he's setting the stage for post-election violence by loudly declaring that his defeat won't be because he's losing the election and the popular vote, but because the election is rigged? Trying to de-legitimizing the results of an election is a pretty good way to incite (and legitimize) violence.
I don't find it ironic that, with the exception of the religious fundamentalists perhaps, conservatives are a lot more open minded and accepting that people have different philosophies than liberals.
I know a lot of liberals and conservatives, and I have not observed the same thing. Conservatives are, almost by definition, less accepting of people who are different. It's a pretty big part of what makes someone a conservative, the belief that people should be forced to conform to certain roles and norms for the ultimate benefit of society. On the other hand, liberals, tend to be less concerned about forcing people to fit in, and are more concerned about what people do (in a moral sense).
But the lesser of two evils is still evil (so keep making fun of third party votes while you vote "evil").
And, yes. How enlightened of you to vote for the lesser of 3 or 4 evils, when everyone else is voting for the lesser of 2 evils. You should always be voting for the lesser evil, no matter which party you choose. Of course, the reason Trump is doing so well in the polls is because he's convinced a sizeable demographic to deliberately vote for the greater evil.
For the vast majority of supporters, a vote for Trump is not a vote for sexism or racism
Of course, it isn't, but that's because they can't reconcile the idea that they're good people and still voting for an evil monster. So, clearly those claims are overblown and they're just voting for the smart, rich guy who will fix everything. And he clearly said all the sexual assault allegations were just the corrupt media, and so what if he, himself, has been recording on tape boasting about his criminal actions. The media will do anything to defeat poor little Donald, even play back his own words, for everyone to hear. Have they no shame?
Or you know, maybe because we heard Trump bragging about assaulting women, then denying it, pretending it was "locker room talk", and then we've seen almost a dozen women come forward and say he assaulted them. Then there's the recordings of him boasting about how he he would deliberately go backstage to peep at the Miss Teen Universe contestants, and the recordings of him (in his sixties) claiming he'd soon be dating 10 and 12 year old girls.
Clearly, it's all the crooked press. How dare they play unedited recordings of Trump talking.
His endorsement is still for "personal safety reasons" and that's sad. It's far more troubling than anything that Trump has said or that has been said about Trump. It's the true death of liberty. It's like living in a fascist or communist state.
It's not for "personal safety reasons" it's for "financial safety reasons" and it's exactly like living in a thriving free market state, because that's where he lives. Your claims to contrary seem to indicate a considerable level of delusion. You may want to talk to someone about that.
People tend to project and they see Trump as Hitler.
Trump's not Hitler, though he has advocated murdering the families of suspected terrorists, torturing suspected terrorists because "they deserve it anyways", and deporting 3.3 million Americans because they don't worship the correct religion. Since he wouldn't be able to deport that many people, he'd probably want to have them sent to special camps where they work to pay for the expense of the camps they have been exiled to, and it's anyone's guess what "final solution" President Trump would come up with for his unwanted guests. So, I'm saying that while Trump isn't Hitler, but he does kind of want to be like Hitler, just without the "bad press". It should also be noted that during this election campaign Trump has publicly praised Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Un for their power, ruthlessness and for killing their enemies in cold blood. Trumps respects the ability to off people who don't agree with you or would stand in the way of his unfettered abuse of power. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Having said that, we can be reasonably confident that no one else would let Trump do what he says he wants to do, but still what Trump has said he wants to do is actually pretty horrifying before we even start to consider that's he an old lecher who cheats on his wives, grabs women he doesn't know, and abused his position with beauty pageants so he could creep around backstage and watch the contestants while they were changing. And then there's the criminal investigations into his business dealings, the bribery of public officials, the fact that his Trump Foundation charity has actually spent money on Donald Trump himself (for example buying portraits of Trump to hang in Trump Hotels), and the probability that he's a serial tax evader and/or a compulsive liar about his net worth.
But that's all optics, right? Supporting him doesn't really mean you're supporting a foolish, ignorant, cheating, lying, scoundrel who routinely abuses his power to get whatever he wants, right?
BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).
Unfortunately, you didn't give me any evidence to contradict my views, I'm just tried of correcting you. For example:
The Canadian Geographic article says of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 3 are growing, 2 are stable and 6 are unknown. You seem to only see that 3 are growing while ignoring that 8 are in decline, and that seems to be simple confirmation bias on your part
something which seems to be common thread running through all of your arguments. All evidence that you are wrong is ignored and any evidence that you might be correct is accepted without question or even examination.
You showed one instance where the climate sensitivity estimate had it's lower range dropped. It was raised onc (4th report) e and lowered once (5th report), it was 1.5 to 4.5C in the first report and 1.5C to 4.5C in the fifth report, which is explicitly what I told you. Now, I don't know why you are arguing about this but like everything else you have written about climate change you are clearly, factually, and demonstrably wrong, but I'm sure you'll invent another excuse to justify your refusal to accept reality.
That's three major mistakes in one sentence, and it's one of your better sentences. A fact which should horrify anyone with half a brain. The simple fact is that everything you think you know is wrong but I am no longer willing to spend my time correcting you (and having the corrections ignored).
What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".
No, what I am experiencing is a condescending jackass who thinks he's clever, but is actually particularly ignorant, dense and, I suspect, more than a little bit slow. I have become weary of your boorish behaviour and your plain fucked up insane bullshit. You are consistently and endlessly wrong, but I don't have the time to debunk 20 or 30 insane claims in every single one of your posts. You pile on the disinformation and insanity and it's just not worth my time to debate you any more.
The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.
You wouldn't recognize the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a
I'm sorry, but virtually everything you've write is factually incorrect and then dressed up in delusions of libertarian virtue. You are, frankly, all sorts of crazy, and I simply do not have the time to continue dealing with you. Good luck with your conspiracies theories and single observations that disprove entire fields of study!
ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.
I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..
ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?
No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?
I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.
Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).
"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.
You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.
Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.
You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.
Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?
When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they
Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).
The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years.
Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done.
Really? Didn't you just direct me the ignorant opinion of a series of elder crackpot scientists with little expertise in the field of climate change? Were you being unscientific then? The article I directed you on Skeptical Science isn't opinion, it's an explanatory article that links to the sources for they're providing you can, if you chose to, verify everything they've stated from the sources provided.
The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction.
Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that.
According to this article on the history of climate sensitivity there hasn't actually been much revision to the estimate, it was established as in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 in 1979, and the most recent IPCC report (5th) has the range as 1.5 to 4.5.
In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality.
The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.
Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scienti
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,
Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?
And the Gaia Hypothesis is an interesting idea, but as wikipedia puts it:
While the Gaia hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould – notable, given the diversity of this trio's views on other scientific matters. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2).
Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.
The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can.
That's a good thing if the number of science denying alarmists is decreasing, it gives fewer straw men for the likes of you to knock down. Of course, it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers is also decreasing, so if you are right, that's a win all around.
The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years, if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age.
f course, being an evil witch, she'll still lie her ass off and pretend to embrace those people's wish lists long enough to get elected. Nothing new there.
Call me cynical, but that's politics, not witchcraft.
How is he corrupt? Has corruption of Donald even been accused? He is many things but I didn't note corruptible being one of them. Who has bribed him? Site references please.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "corrupt".
Donald has taken and paid bribes. He's illegally dealt with Cuba while publicly claiming he would never deal with them. He's swindled people out of their money with his fake Trump University where he put two con artists with a long criminal history in charge, then when the inevitable investigation came along, he used his charity, the Trump Foundation, to bribe the Florida Attorney general into dropping the charges. Beyond that, Donald has lied about just about everything, but since he has never held a government office, he has not had the opportunity to betray that trust for his own financial benefit, yet.
Personally, I think it's rare for anyone to accuse Trump of being corrupt, because he is so obviously corrupt, it's just not news, so I am very amused by the people who think Trump will clean up "the corruption in politics".
The problem is that she was using her private email server for federal business: first, to evade public scrutiny, which is illegal;
The FBI investigation concluded there is not evidence to support that she did it to avoid scrutiny or public record laws, so no.
second, for sending and receiving classified documents, which is also illegal.
She ran the State Department, and they can't actually do their job without being able to send and receive some classified information. They're not the FBI, CIA or NSA, and they need to actually communicate with outside people which can be a bit of a foreign concept to the spooks.
You need to read laws very carefully the words it seems to me the important bit you missed here is "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States". It seems to me that this law concerns the removal or destruction of court documents and other official records. If you can point to the records that you believe that Clinton destroyed, please do so.
Because it can be so complicated, Congress also made carelessness with classified information punishable, regardless of intent. That's basically our espionage law: If you give away our secrets, or, if you allow through carelessness the conditions for someone else to steal them, we are going to prosecute you and probably throw you in prison for a while.
Except, there is no evidence that Hillary allowed any classified materials to be stolen. Guccifer has admitted that he hadn't actually hacked Hillary's email server (although he did hack Colin Powell's web site and email account) and investigators found no evidence of any such hacks on the server, so there just doesn't seem to be anything to prosecute here. The worst we can legitimately throw at Hillary is that she used an email server that hadn't officially been approved, which hardly seems like a crime, let alone one that deserves a prison sentence.
you can wonder all you want, but these guys with a NOBEL PRIZE in Physics, the world's greatest aviation engineer, and a physicist who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics all think you are very, very WRONG:
Frankly, there is no point in continuing this conversation, you refuse to acknowledge your errors and you are clearly a wingnut with your claims of communist environmental conspiracies, your worship of old physicists who speak about things they readily admit they haven't bothered to study at all, and your penchant for making wild claims which you refuse to back up with any evidence what so ever.
Why do you feel the need to insult a stranger when they are telling you the truth?
First I didn't insult you, I commented on your lack of knowledge about Greenland because you made multiple statements that are so obviously incorrect that the only possible way a person could actually believe they were true was if that person knew nothing at all about the country. Second, many of the things you have written are pants-on-fire false, and now when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your statements, you chose to ignore the evidence, and double down on your fact-free views. So, if you don't want you ignorance pointed out in public, don't put it on display.
Greenland was warmer in the past and got a lot colder... For example, the following proves my case, Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today
The link you provided says the Viking colonies died out sometime around the early 16th century, which is in the middle of the Little Ice Age (~1300-1870), while it does suggest that temperatures may have dropped in the later years, that's only one of many possible reasons for the destruction of the settlements put forth. And it should notice that a no point does it make a comparison between today's temperatures and those of Viking settlements. Meanwhile, this study disputes the notion that Greenland was much warmer when it was first colonised based on analysis of glacier sediments which indicate that Greenland's glaciers did not undergo significant changes during the period that the Vikings had settled the island. If they are correct it shows that the Viking settlements did not enjoy a climate that was as warm as that of today, because if it had been warmer, then the glaciers should have shown similar or greater melting (over the course of 500 years) which they do not.
use the Scientific Method, please.
Frankly, I wonder how you think you are applying the scientific method here.
We are still unable to farm in Greenland as the Vikings did (it is so much colder today than then that the graves of the Viking farmers there are now under 'permafrost' - because it was warm enough 1000 years ago that Greenland was green and fertile and not white like today).
Did you tell anyone in Greenland that they can't farm there? Because they seem to think they can grow potatoes, turnips, beets, carrots, parsnips, cauliflower and cabbage. Mind you, I don't know much more about Greenland than you do, but it kind of seems like you don't actually know anything about the country, the people who live there, or their history.
Actually, the anti-vaxxer movement was started by underhanded profit motives. Andrew Wakefield was paid to sow doubt about the MMR vaccine, so that a competitor vaccine could be sold to the British government while the investigation into Wakefield's allegations was conducted.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "pointless and closed" were you unable to understand?
It must be part where you expect me to care about your declarations.
Do I need to be more explicit about why I believe you are not worth more of my time?
Well then, you should try backing up your words with actions.
The truth would require rudeness, and I'm not even campaigning to be president.
Oh, of course it would. When you've got no facts, no evidence, and no logic to back you up, what are you left with other than a bad attitude and insults?
Yes, you have convinced me you are fanatical and willing to repeat yourself.
That's what it says in my signature, though I have to say that disagreeing with your incompetent analysis of the situation hardly counts as repeating myself, unless of course, you are suck puppet, in which I could see where being shot down twice for ignorant blathering feels like "repeating".
I could extend my responses, but there was no evidence of anything recognizable as sincerity or curiosity, so you have also convinced me that would be a waste of time and keystrokes.
Actually, I find it doubtful that you could extend your responses. All you seem to have is accusations that professional pollsters are either less competent than you, who once studied polling in university before dropping out of your sociology program, or so corrupt that they provide poll results that match whatever the client requests. You have offered no evidence other than your own general opinions to support either case. Like the poster, I first responded to, you seem to be suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect where you know just enough about the topic to be very confident that you are completely right about everything that you don't know.
Or perhaps I should apologize for writing at a level that is too difficult for you?
Oh I understood everything you wrote, but I am not sure that you did because if you had you would have understood my counter-arguments. Frankly, you should be apologizing for your disgraceful conduct and for wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.
Currently 1 in 25 American children (yes: American, because that's the only place with an insane inoculation frequency) falls prey to an autism spectrum disorder.
That comment set off my bullshit detector, and the CDC says it's about 1 in 68.
My first degree included sociology and I studied quite a bit about polling. I even followed up with math before switching to computer science for my second degree. So I'm telling you [tbannist] to stop projecting your ignorance or bias.
So, are you a sock-puppet account for meta-monkey? Or are you just jumping on the "polling isn't accurate because I don't like the results" bandwagon?
Short summary: It is quite easy to deliver any poll results you are being paid for.
I would strongly suspect that vast majority of polls are paid for accurate results. In the case of political campaigns, for example, they may only release the results of favourable polls, but deliberately inaccurate polls seem like a waste of money. It far cheaper to simply choose the poll(s) that other people have paid for that most resemble the result you want and trumpet those. Also, few people are going to believe a poll that the campaign paid for that produces wildly different results from everyone other poll. Without a sound procedure and definite reasons for the discrepancies, it would be immediately be dismissed as paid-for-results and it would damage the credibility of the polling organization that produced the results.
The hardest thing is to produce an honest poll that gives you meaningful insight into any deep issue.
There's a qualitative different between biased results and deliberately dishonest results. Most polls have some degree of bias and we can compare polls to each other and to election results to see how accurate they and develop and estimate of how biased the poll is and in which direction. But meta-monkey made the claim that they don't even try to be accurate until the last week before the election and if you believe he is correct, then you're also an ignorant fool.
The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.
As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.
The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?
Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened."
There's nearly a dozen women who say differently.
He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence?
How about when he suggested that "second ammendment types" could kill Clinton to prevent her from passing any gun control laws? How about the way he's setting the stage for post-election violence by loudly declaring that his defeat won't be because he's losing the election and the popular vote, but because the election is rigged? Trying to de-legitimizing the results of an election is a pretty good way to incite (and legitimize) violence.
I don't find it ironic that, with the exception of the religious fundamentalists perhaps, conservatives are a lot more open minded and accepting that people have different philosophies than liberals.
I know a lot of liberals and conservatives, and I have not observed the same thing. Conservatives are, almost by definition, less accepting of people who are different. It's a pretty big part of what makes someone a conservative, the belief that people should be forced to conform to certain roles and norms for the ultimate benefit of society. On the other hand, liberals, tend to be less concerned about forcing people to fit in, and are more concerned about what people do (in a moral sense).
But the lesser of two evils is still evil (so keep making fun of third party votes while you vote "evil").
And, yes. How enlightened of you to vote for the lesser of 3 or 4 evils, when everyone else is voting for the lesser of 2 evils. You should always be voting for the lesser evil, no matter which party you choose. Of course, the reason Trump is doing so well in the polls is because he's convinced a sizeable demographic to deliberately vote for the greater evil.
For the vast majority of supporters, a vote for Trump is not a vote for sexism or racism
Of course, it isn't, but that's because they can't reconcile the idea that they're good people and still voting for an evil monster. So, clearly those claims are overblown and they're just voting for the smart, rich guy who will fix everything. And he clearly said all the sexual assault allegations were just the corrupt media, and so what if he, himself, has been recording on tape boasting about his criminal actions. The media will do anything to defeat poor little Donald, even play back his own words, for everyone to hear. Have they no shame?
Or you know, maybe because we heard Trump bragging about assaulting women, then denying it, pretending it was "locker room talk", and then we've seen almost a dozen women come forward and say he assaulted them. Then there's the recordings of him boasting about how he he would deliberately go backstage to peep at the Miss Teen Universe contestants, and the recordings of him (in his sixties) claiming he'd soon be dating 10 and 12 year old girls.
Clearly, it's all the crooked press. How dare they play unedited recordings of Trump talking.
His endorsement is still for "personal safety reasons" and that's sad. It's far more troubling than anything that Trump has said or that has been said about Trump. It's the true death of liberty. It's like living in a fascist or communist state.
It's not for "personal safety reasons" it's for "financial safety reasons" and it's exactly like living in a thriving free market state, because that's where he lives. Your claims to contrary seem to indicate a considerable level of delusion. You may want to talk to someone about that.
People tend to project and they see Trump as Hitler.
Trump's not Hitler, though he has advocated murdering the families of suspected terrorists, torturing suspected terrorists because "they deserve it anyways", and deporting 3.3 million Americans because they don't worship the correct religion. Since he wouldn't be able to deport that many people, he'd probably want to have them sent to special camps where they work to pay for the expense of the camps they have been exiled to, and it's anyone's guess what "final solution" President Trump would come up with for his unwanted guests. So, I'm saying that while Trump isn't Hitler, but he does kind of want to be like Hitler, just without the "bad press". It should also be noted that during this election campaign Trump has publicly praised Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Un for their power, ruthlessness and for killing their enemies in cold blood. Trumps respects the ability to off people who don't agree with you or would stand in the way of his unfettered abuse of power. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Having said that, we can be reasonably confident that no one else would let Trump do what he says he wants to do, but still what Trump has said he wants to do is actually pretty horrifying before we even start to consider that's he an old lecher who cheats on his wives, grabs women he doesn't know, and abused his position with beauty pageants so he could creep around backstage and watch the contestants while they were changing. And then there's the criminal investigations into his business dealings, the bribery of public officials, the fact that his Trump Foundation charity has actually spent money on Donald Trump himself (for example buying portraits of Trump to hang in Trump Hotels), and the probability that he's a serial tax evader and/or a compulsive liar about his net worth.
But that's all optics, right? Supporting him doesn't really mean you're supporting a foolish, ignorant, cheating, lying, scoundrel who routinely abuses his power to get whatever he wants, right?
BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).
Unfortunately, you didn't give me any evidence to contradict my views, I'm just tried of correcting you. For example:
something which seems to be common thread running through all of your arguments. All evidence that you are wrong is ignored and any evidence that you might be correct is accepted without question or even examination.
That's three major mistakes in one sentence, and it's one of your better sentences. A fact which should horrify anyone with half a brain. The simple fact is that everything you think you know is wrong but I am no longer willing to spend my time correcting you (and having the corrections ignored).
What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".
No, what I am experiencing is a condescending jackass who thinks he's clever, but is actually particularly ignorant, dense and, I suspect, more than a little bit slow. I have become weary of your boorish behaviour and your plain fucked up insane bullshit. You are consistently and endlessly wrong, but I don't have the time to debunk 20 or 30 insane claims in every single one of your posts. You pile on the disinformation and insanity and it's just not worth my time to debate you any more.
The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.
You wouldn't recognize the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a
I'm sorry, but virtually everything you've write is factually incorrect and then dressed up in delusions of libertarian virtue. You are, frankly, all sorts of crazy, and I simply do not have the time to continue dealing with you. Good luck with your conspiracies theories and single observations that disprove entire fields of study!
ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.
I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..
ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?
No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?
I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.
Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).
"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.
You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.
Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.
You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.
Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?
When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they
Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).
The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years.
Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done.
Really? Didn't you just direct me the ignorant opinion of a series of elder crackpot scientists with little expertise in the field of climate change? Were you being unscientific then? The article I directed you on Skeptical Science isn't opinion, it's an explanatory article that links to the sources for they're providing you can, if you chose to, verify everything they've stated from the sources provided.
The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction.
The failure to detect the signal was most likely measurement error, according to this article co-authored by John Christy (who is definitely not a global warming proponent). There is also a stratospheric cooling trend that biases the results on the cold side because the microwave signal is travelling through a cooling band of atmosphere above the warming band and the balloon data actually shows warming.
Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that.
According to this article on the history of climate sensitivity there hasn't actually been much revision to the estimate, it was established as in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 in 1979, and the most recent IPCC report (5th) has the range as 1.5 to 4.5.
In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality.
The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.
Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scienti
So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,
Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?
And the Gaia Hypothesis is an interesting idea, but as wikipedia puts it:
I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2).
Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.
The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can.
That's a good thing if the number of science denying alarmists is decreasing, it gives fewer straw men for the likes of you to knock down. Of course, it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers is also decreasing, so if you are right, that's a win all around.
The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.
That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years, if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age.
Sorry, "the mean one" is Trump and "the megalomaniac" is also Trump. Clinton is "the politician" with everything good and bad that it implies.
f course, being an evil witch, she'll still lie her ass off and pretend to embrace those people's wish lists long enough to get elected. Nothing new there.
Call me cynical, but that's politics, not witchcraft.
The uranium deal that was approved by 10 federal agencies that Clinton had no control over? Do tell.
How is he corrupt? Has corruption of Donald even been accused? He is many things but I didn't note corruptible being one of them. Who has bribed him? Site references please.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "corrupt".
Donald has taken and paid bribes. He's illegally dealt with Cuba while publicly claiming he would never deal with them. He's swindled people out of their money with his fake Trump University where he put two con artists with a long criminal history in charge, then when the inevitable investigation came along, he used his charity, the Trump Foundation, to bribe the Florida Attorney general into dropping the charges. Beyond that, Donald has lied about just about everything, but since he has never held a government office, he has not had the opportunity to betray that trust for his own financial benefit, yet.
Personally, I think it's rare for anyone to accuse Trump of being corrupt, because he is so obviously corrupt, it's just not news, so I am very amused by the people who think Trump will clean up "the corruption in politics".
The problem is that she was using her private email server for federal business: first, to evade public scrutiny, which is illegal;
The FBI investigation concluded there is not evidence to support that she did it to avoid scrutiny or public record laws, so no.
second, for sending and receiving classified documents, which is also illegal.
She ran the State Department, and they can't actually do their job without being able to send and receive some classified information. They're not the FBI, CIA or NSA, and they need to actually communicate with outside people which can be a bit of a foreign concept to the spooks.
You need to read laws very carefully the words it seems to me the important bit you missed here is "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States". It seems to me that this law concerns the removal or destruction of court documents and other official records. If you can point to the records that you believe that Clinton destroyed, please do so.
Because it can be so complicated, Congress also made carelessness with classified information punishable, regardless of intent. That's basically our espionage law: If you give away our secrets, or, if you allow through carelessness the conditions for someone else to steal them, we are going to prosecute you and probably throw you in prison for a while.
Except, there is no evidence that Hillary allowed any classified materials to be stolen. Guccifer has admitted that he hadn't actually hacked Hillary's email server (although he did hack Colin Powell's web site and email account) and investigators found no evidence of any such hacks on the server, so there just doesn't seem to be anything to prosecute here. The worst we can legitimately throw at Hillary is that she used an email server that hadn't officially been approved, which hardly seems like a crime, let alone one that deserves a prison sentence.
You have provided no evidence, You have only asserted your own opinion, that of a fanatical eco-loon.
Now, who is insulting whom?
I have a PhD in Physics. What do you have?
Well then, that explains everything.
you can wonder all you want, but these guys with a NOBEL PRIZE in Physics, the world's greatest aviation engineer, and a physicist who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics all think you are very, very WRONG:
Oh look, three phyicists who have literally spent several hours reading blogs on the internet about climate change are telling everyone who'll listen how the all of climate change research must be wrong according to some amazing insight they've had that clearly no one who's spent years studying the topic would ever think of. Meanwhile, pretty much every published article on climate change in the last decade and every researcher active in the field of climate science says the opposite of these three guys, but we should definitely go with the non-expert opinions of rambling physicists.
Frankly, there is no point in continuing this conversation, you refuse to acknowledge your errors and you are clearly a wingnut with your claims of communist environmental conspiracies, your worship of old physicists who speak about things they readily admit they haven't bothered to study at all, and your penchant for making wild claims which you refuse to back up with any evidence what so ever.
Why do you feel the need to insult a stranger when they are telling you the truth?
First I didn't insult you, I commented on your lack of knowledge about Greenland because you made multiple statements that are so obviously incorrect that the only possible way a person could actually believe they were true was if that person knew nothing at all about the country. Second, many of the things you have written are pants-on-fire false, and now when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your statements, you chose to ignore the evidence, and double down on your fact-free views. So, if you don't want you ignorance pointed out in public, don't put it on display.
Greenland was warmer in the past and got a lot colder... For example, the following proves my case, Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today
The link you provided says the Viking colonies died out sometime around the early 16th century, which is in the middle of the Little Ice Age (~1300-1870), while it does suggest that temperatures may have dropped in the later years, that's only one of many possible reasons for the destruction of the settlements put forth. And it should notice that a no point does it make a comparison between today's temperatures and those of Viking settlements. Meanwhile, this study disputes the notion that Greenland was much warmer when it was first colonised based on analysis of glacier sediments which indicate that Greenland's glaciers did not undergo significant changes during the period that the Vikings had settled the island. If they are correct it shows that the Viking settlements did not enjoy a climate that was as warm as that of today, because if it had been warmer, then the glaciers should have shown similar or greater melting (over the course of 500 years) which they do not.
use the Scientific Method, please.
Frankly, I wonder how you think you are applying the scientific method here.
We are still unable to farm in Greenland as the Vikings did (it is so much colder today than then that the graves of the Viking farmers there are now under 'permafrost' - because it was warm enough 1000 years ago that Greenland was green and fertile and not white like today).
Did you tell anyone in Greenland that they can't farm there? Because they seem to think they can grow potatoes, turnips, beets, carrots, parsnips, cauliflower and cabbage. Mind you, I don't know much more about Greenland than you do, but it kind of seems like you don't actually know anything about the country, the people who live there, or their history.
Actually, the anti-vaxxer movement was started by underhanded profit motives. Andrew Wakefield was paid to sow doubt about the MMR vaccine, so that a competitor vaccine could be sold to the British government while the investigation into Wakefield's allegations was conducted.
Intelligent dialogue is not possible anymore at this point.
I suspect with you, it never is possible.