OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gronk]

Well since Gronk has proven his ability to misrepresent me

Yeah when was that again ?

 

[Bandwagon]

Well assuming your 90% hypothetical I'd say it's definitely fair.

Why would you assume universal application of a random hypothetical?

9/10 hypothetical's using statistical propositions are exaggerated for effect.

Why would you disagree with this?

Its not a case of agree or disagree, it's a case of as a statement "I can't rule it out" has implications beyond say a statement of "I can neither rule it in, nor out", it's unbalanced and implies it to be true until proven untrue, because "can't"( ie unable to ) implies an impassable obstacle to doing so.

That may not have been your intention, but it is very much the convention as I understand it.

As long as you don't think I'm trying to change your mind. If this was a private discussion I would've agreed to disagree long ago.

I'm not particularly interested in assigning motive to posters here, more likely than not I'd get it wrong.

 

[Bandwagon]

FFS Barry, I was having enough trouble understanding what they were talking about!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

I think it's low carb, but not certain it's keto.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

I think it's low carb, but not certain it's keto.

That does look interesting. I will examine it further when my brain is fuelled by ketones, and not the wine I've been feeding it for several hours.

 

[Gronk]

That does look interesting. I will examine it further when my brain is fuelled by ketones, and not the wine I've been feeding it for several hours.

Wines without residual sugar (meaning that they don’t have any sugars left after fermentation) are not uncommon are are considered keto-ish.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Wines without residual sugar (meaning that they don’t have any sugars left after fermentation) are not uncommon are are considered keto-ish.

View attachment 35690
View attachment 35691

I know. It's great news for most people. Problem is I'm not most people..

 

[Gronk]

I know. It's great news for most people. Problem is I'm not most people..

Because it’s probably not keto if you’re on your second goon bag.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Because it’s probably not keto if you’re on your second goon bag.

Well yeah, that's my point.

 

[Bandwagon]

Well yeah, that's my point.

I'd suggest leaving those links for another day in that case.

You never wanna start thinking too much on more than a goon bag.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I'd suggest leaving those links for another day in that case.

You never wanna start thinking too much on more than a goon bag.

It's more like a drip feed. Just watching a bit of the tennis.

 

[Eelogical]

It's more like a drip feed. Just watching a bit of the tennis.

Is it more exciting than basketball?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Is it more exciting than basketball?

Tennis is incredibly boring. But yeah, I reckon.

 

[Eelogical]

Tennis is incredibly boring. But yeah, I reckon.

Tennis needs players to be arseholes. They need something to prop up their sport.

 

[Gronk]

The science is far from compelling to this chap too.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yeah when was that again ?

When you replied to my post with a whole bunch of stuff that I agreed with. The only possible implication is that you thought the stuff you quoted was at odds with what I had said.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why would you assume universal application of a random hypothetical?

Because it's your hypothetical and I'm replying to you?

9/10 hypothetical's using statistical propositions are exaggerated for effect.

I didn't assume your hypothetical was true, I just chose to play your game, in good faith. Why else would you bring a hypothetical into it?

Its not a case of agree or disagree, it's a case of as a statement "I can't rule it out" has implications beyond say a statement of "I can neither rule it in, nor out", it's unbalanced and implies it to be true until proven untrue, because "can't"( ie unable to ) implies an impassable obstacle to doing so.

That may not have been your intention, but it is very much the convention as I understand it.

No, I meant it's just possible until proven impossible.

I'm not particularly interested in assigning motive to posters here, more likely than not I'd get it wrong.

That's because it's not an area of expertise for you, whereas for me it is.

But so that we're clear (because I suspect you to be on the side of listen-to-the-experts), I don't consider my expertise to carry any moral authority with anyone who isn't me. I only mention it so you know where I'm coming from.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The science is far from compelling to this chap too.

It's absolutely not compelling. As has been mentioned, we need (quality) scientists to analyse scientific data, but then we have extra layers of journalists, activists and politicians telling us what they believe scientists are saying. Much like Katherine Wu said in blog post I shared earlier:

When I earn my Ph.D., I might be able to say, “We think we may have come across something that explains a miniscule portion of a complex pathway that might be correlated with a slightly elevated risk of contracting this disease—but our findings are pretty specific to this one population studied at this point in time under these conditions.”

Meanwhile, media headlines say, “Lemons cure cancer!”​

Now if this same headline was useful to a political ideology it would also be repeated by government-funded heads in suits, using the language of the chattering classes to lend it gravity. It would become The Truth and if you questioned whether science actually said all this you would be a 'denier'.

 

[Gronk]

When you replied to my post with a whole bunch of stuff that I agreed with. The only possible implication is that you thought the stuff you quoted was at odds with what I had said.

I’d like to call a friend thanks Eddy.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Maybe your 'friend' can provide an alternate hypothesis.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Meh, science progresses,

Uncertainty Quantification
This page provides computer code for a new, improved uncertainty analysis for the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) v4, and which can be similarly applied to v3. The analysis in described in detail in the journal article "Improvements in the uncertainty model in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) analysis" by Lenssen et al. (2019). The code is written in the R programming language; instructions for downloading the code and replicating the analysis are given below.

The production GISTEMP global mean temperature time series with the total (LSAT and SST) 95% confidence interval calculated in our study for annual mean temperature smoothed with LOWESS with 5-year bandwidth. Anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1951-1980 climatology.

GISTEMP processes spatial variations in surface temperature anomalies that are derived from historical weather station data and ocean data from ships, buoys and other sensors. Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty, changes in spatial coverage of the station record, and systematic biases due to technology shifts and land cover changes.

In Lenssen et al (2019), we have updated previous uncertainty estimates using currently available spatial distributions of source data and state-of-the-art reanalyses, and incorporate independently derived estimates for ocean data processing, station homogenization and other structural biases. The resulting 95% uncertainties are near 0.05°C in the global annual mean for the last 50 years, and increase going back further in time reaching 0.15°C in 1880.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/

It's funny, though, right, that the "uncertainties" always make the past cooler, thus making the present seem warmer?

Same with BOM, I guess, right? And I guess that's the same reason they don't like showing arctic ice data from prior to 1979?

And I guess it's a coincidence that Briffa's data post-1960s was not included, and it's a coincidence that the climategate emails contain "hide the decline" and "remove the 1940s blip"?

And that, now, >40% of temperature data is "estimates" after they stopped using actual recordings?

And that, considering "most of the warming has occured in the Arctic", you find the biggest "adjustments" there?

No, no, no, it's all a coincidence.

After all, you just quoted the very people who changed the data and they said that the adjusted data is perfectly fine...

No need to look any deeper. Carry on.