Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 5, 2015.
Cheers mate, I wish you all the luck possible. Hate seeing all this devastation
As that article points out the biggest problem with 5G is that it doesn't penetrate solid objects particularly well, which includes your head.
They had to put an aerial all around the edge of 5g phones because the traditional placing of the aerial down one long side resulted in the users hand blocking the signal too much when holding it.
HJ where do you get your coffee?
I been going to Kickaboom in Glenbrook of late.
Do you ever eat the burgers in Springwood? Not bad at all. Most the food in Springwood is average if ask me.
I have and we had a long exchange about it. You accused me of cutting and pasting whilst doing exactly the same.
Then there were quite of few posts about hockey sticks which I felt became weirdly sexual. Perhaps I have said too much, but my point is you are a bearded nuffy.
I'd be shocked if the % of scientists was as low as 33%
Not because I believe that there is consensus based on overwhelming evidence, but because I know for a fact there is consensus based on a severe attitude shift in the way scientists work in the modern day.
Snarky comments from HJ over previous posts aside, I do have a science degree and I did work in the field for some time, and it's not working the way it should be.
Hello, Dominos Pizza. Can I take your order?
Yep, I agree with the essence of what you're saying here.
Basically, since then, every Premier has had the opportunity to reverse that decision and so they need to shoulder some of the blame.
I agree 100% with you, Gronk.
Carr started it, and so he needs the biggest kick in the teeth, but there's lashings for every Premier since, too.
In general, I can't believe how lightly the Premiers are getting off. Morrison is copping it but he's just had poor optics, really. Even Daniel Andrews has stated outright that Victoria has received everything they requested in a timely fashion. Morrison's job is to ensure the federals support the states, as these are state based responsibilities. From all accounts he has done that.
Yes, he has looked like a f**kwit in the process but I'm unaware of any instance where the feds have failed to support the requests of the states.
So, why are the states getting off so lightly? Why is everyone dogpiling on Morrison (he deserves a smacking, as well, but his sins are the least of those committed, in my opinion).
We should be dragging our Premiers, past and present, out onto the streets and lynching them.
Why aren't we? Why are they getting off so lightly?
I don't believe we have ever discussed the 97%, mate.
You see, it comes from a specific paper. One specific paper.
The hockeysticks are the (fraudulent) work of one man, copied by others after he was exposed. They are not a representation of the general "scientific consensus".
The actual 97% figure (from where the "consensus" hoax comes from) specifically refers to work done by one group and released in 2013. And it has been shown to be fraudulent.
Do you know it? Have you read it?
No I actually welcomed an associate to a Member (only slightly a euphemism) to an erotic massage parlour.
Actually, he's texting me now...
We did discuss it. You were probably too drunk on Tooheys Old to remember.
The 33% relate to professionals (people actually employed, not just academics). As per my last post, it is drawn from a rebuttal paper to the specific piece of work from which the 97% claim comes from.
I'll see if I can dig the two papers (the original and the rebuttal) out over the weekend, but this is the short version:
* The 97% claim comes from one specific paper from one specific group, published in 2013;
* The paper is crap because the authors assigned a "believe"/"don't believe" labels onto the work of others themselves, without contacting the people whose work they were summarising/categorising to actually ensure they were categorising correctly;
* A rebuttal paper was put together by a group who actually contacted the people doing the summarised/categorised work from the first paper, and let the people who did the work stake their own position on man-made climate change;
* The results were 52% supported "climate change is real and caused by man", not 97%;
* However, when looking at professionals (which excludes pure academics), that % dropped to 33% support.
Can you please do me a favour and either a) find that discussion or b) just tell me the paper that the 97% claim originates from (so I know we were talking about it). Cheers.
Or you imagined it while high on mushrooms
Can you do me a favour?
Yeah look I think 97% is a fantasy. Or maybe you'd get a similar result if you took a survey that wasn't anonymous...
That being said I also wouldn't be surprised because of the attitude towards scepticism that's emerged in recent years. It's quite telling how the idea of most science (and that's very broad, I know) used to be trying to disprove an idea in order to prove it. Now there's a lot of just re-proving things that someone else concluded
Found the discussion.
Gary: So what about that 97% paper on climate change?
HJ: You absolute simpleton dont you know that the paper is [Smug, smug, smug smug smug....]
Gary: Yeah, but...
HJ: It was written by the lizard people, and it is wrong because [Smug, smug, smug smug]
Gary: Well, I....
HJ: Don't make me laugh you [smug, smug, smug]
Gary: Oh, FFS chicken boy...
I feel like you made that up.
The real HJ would never go that long without mentioning Pizza-gate
Yep, he often has a point when he questions things (which I naturally question) but severely lets himself down by being just as sloppy and absolute as those that he questions.
It's the sort of irony that is far too ironic for Alanis Morrissette to pick up on.
Here's an interesting read on the "97%" study for any one interested, it's neither confirmation or rebuttal of the study.
"Tol dislikes, in principle, the idea of a consensus. After all, the point of science is to challenge accepted wisdom and refine it, a process that runs somewhat counter to the idea of a consensus."
It's a fair point. I believe human activity is more likely than not to be contributing to climate change, but the idea of majority consensus in this is misleading and only helpful for convincing idiots. Science isn't democratic.
This is also a good point:
'While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.
"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."'
Separate names with a comma.