Global warming-or is it?

Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #50,  »Last edited
The only question you should ask is "what the bleep do we know".

We got a lot of snow, according to you anyway.

For me I saw average snowfall where I live.

It comes back to the question, if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound?

Sure you can setup something to record the sound, but would it still have made that sound if the recording device that was designed to record sound wasn't there.

Seeing is believing, and believing is everything. That is at the heart of everything that happens, but if you can logically believe something its more likely to happen that way than another way.

My problem lays with facts. Facts are opinions that were proven using imperfect tests that people saw which led to a more popular opinion.

"If you believe, Even though you can not see,You Will See." ~Russ

I love this quote because it holds true for everything even this subject.

I don't believe in global warming, but I do see climate change. I see it every time I look out the window or go outside from day to day. I see climate change because I was taught that it happens since I was born as well as experienced it. Everyone always watches the weather. The best thing to do really is be prepared for every weather situation you've ever experienced personally and then just let it happen the way its going to because we can't control it anyway. In other words prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

I like science but I like creative science that involves questioning what we think we know to find different solutions by using what we think we know and learn by questioning that to do something previously thought impossible.

I don't likely blindly following everything that has been presented as a truth even if it is scientifically "proven" because if you go back to the metaphoric question about the sound of a tree falling in the forest, we just don't know beyond the smallest doubt possible.

 

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #51,  »
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 23rd, 09:31 PM
It comes back to the question, if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound?
Of course it does. Truth is objective. Your attempt to claim it is subjective fails... remember, to you, truth is subjective, so you can state no absolutes.

I, on the other hand, am not hindered by that misapprehension.

Facts are not opinions, they are facts. You're entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own facts.

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #52,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 12:22 AM
Facts are not opinions, they are facts. You're entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own facts.
Careful now Cycle.  I can have a dogma that is mine and it works just fine for me; when I state something as fact, it still lives under the umbrella of my dogma.  What I'm getting at is, I can say, "I can prove this as an absolute fact."  But in reality, it is not and I cannot.  Why?  Because my "absolute fact" is tied to my dogma, my perspective.  Every one of us has that same limitation.  My awareness of my reality is not the same as reality and likely not the same as your awareness of your reality.  We are biological machines and we don't all process information the same way.  On top of that we have other abilities, gut instincts, intuition that sways our motivations and interpretations.  What do we do about this?

We have to merge those things we have in common and use them as a basis for resolution of our conflicts.  Given enough time they will approach reality, but never actually get there.  At some point we will declare self evidence, because we agree, but regardless, it will still be an approximation of reality tied to multiple perspectives.  Close enough will have to do, because it's all we got.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #53,  »
And if your dogma says that pink unicorns fart pixie dust, which is the impetus of gravity... those are "facts" to you?

Facts are based in objective truth. Opinion is opinion, and may or may not be based in objective truth, nor even align with reality.

If my 'dogma' says "1+1=2", that is a fact. It cannot be falsified.

PeakPositive

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #54,  »
I know one thing if we enter a mini Ice Age and a tree falls in the woods there will be the sound of a chainsaw cutting it up for heat. :rofl: :whofarted: :clap2:

haxar

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #55,  »
Your facts could get caught in lies you believe too.

A lier in the political climate: Clintons

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #56,  »
Quote from haxar on March 24th, 02:39 AM
Your facts could get caught in lies you believe too.
Yeap.
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 01:33 AM
And if your dogma says that pink unicorns fart pixie dust, which is the impetus of gravity... those are "facts" to you?

Facts are based in objective truth. Opinion is opinion, and may or may not be based in objective truth, nor even align with reality.

If my 'dogma' says "1+1=2", that is a fact. It cannot be falsified.
It cannot be falsified by you at the moment you declare it a fact.

Cycle, you need to read the book Flowers for Algernon.
Quote
Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #57,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on March 24th, 10:50 AM
It cannot be falsified by you at the moment you declare it a fact.
This should be good.

Please falsify '1+1=2'.

 :fdrum:

After you've expended your lifetime pondering that and failing to falsify it, you can answer this:

"Why is it true that 3-3=5?"

And you'll yet again expend yet another lifetime pondering that and failing to answer it, because it is inherently untrue that 3-3=5.

So you've just spent two lifetimes proving me right by two different avenues.

Thanks. :D

Now ponder that all actual science is reducible to mathematics. CAGW, on the other hand, violates the mathematics of describing physical phenomenon, and is therefore a falsified hypothesis.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #58,  »
No worries, soon we will have free energy and fossil fuels and climate change will go the way of the dodo bird. Problem solved.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #59,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 24th, 11:20 AM
No worries, soon we will have free energy and fossil fuels and climate change will go the way of the dodo bird. Problem solved.
One big difference between CAGW and the dodo bird... the dodo actually existed at one point in time, whereas CAGW is as real as pink unicorns farting pixie dust.

But according to Matt Watts, all you have to do is assert that pink unicorns farting pixie dust are real, and poof!... they become a reality. Apparently, libtards believe the same sort of 'reasoning' applies to CAGW. :lol:

PeakPositive


Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #61,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 11:18 AM
Please falsify '1+1=2'.
I'll take a shot at this because the answer was given to me by someone who was years ahead of me in math when I was in school.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

Except divide 1 by 3 and take that decimal answer and add it together 3 times don't let a calculator do it because they just round the answer.

Which is 0.3333 with the 3 repeating infinitely. Add together all 0.3333's and you end up with a 0.9999 with the 9 repeating infinitely.

So 1 technically can never technically equal 1 exactly... if you entered in 1+1 into a calculator using fractions in correct decimal form you wouldn't get 2.

It should also be noted that most scientific calculators are programmed to round an input of (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3) to the answer of 1 instead of .0.9999 repeating. There is actually no way to enter 1/3 into a calculator perfectly because 0.3333 repeats the 3 infinitely... hence the calculator just rounds the answer up to 1, when technically the answer is 0.999 repeating infinitely.

In fact I'm pretty sure I remember learning there is actually a formula used for complex calculations to account for this inconsistency of the number 1 that takes this into account for "Error Correction" purposes to get a more accurate answer when dealing with large amounts of data and large numbers.

Of course I am by no means insinuating that everything you think will automatically become reality... and everything you want to happen will happen.

But everything you want to happen there is a way of making happen no matter how ridiculous the idea is, but that's my own personal belief. It doesn't mean I'm going to try and materialize something out of thin air and its just going to happen because I wished it to, but I could question scientifically how to make something materialize, and there may even be an answer and method for doing that.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #62,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from PeakPositive on March 24th, 12:08 PM
That's why rule #1 describing libtards is that they're notoriously bad at math.

1) They're notoriously bad at math.
2) They have no sense of scale.
3) They have no sense of history.
4) They're gullible enough to believe every scary story they manage to read.
5) They remain clue-repellent. Willingly so.

I forgot to add rule #6:
6) When beaten by facts, they believe feigning moral outrage makes them 'more right' than those facts. Expect infantile tantrums.
 :D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #63,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 03:51 PM
I'll take a shot at this because the answer was given to me by someone who was years ahead of me in math when I was in school.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

Except divide 1 by 3 and take that decimal answer and add it together 3 times don't let a calculator do it because they just round the answer.

Which is 0.3333 with the 3 repeating infinitely. Add together all 0.3333's and you end up with a 0.9999 with the 9 repeating infinitely.

So 1 technically can never technically equal 1 exactly... if you entered in 1+1 into a calculator using fractions in correct decimal form you wouldn't get 2.

It should also be noted that most scientific calculators are programmed to round an input of (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3) to the answer of 1 instead of .0.9999 repeating. There is actually no way to enter 1/3 into a calculator perfectly because 0.3333 repeats the 3 infinitely... hence the calculator just rounds the answer up to 1, when technically the answer is 0.999 repeating infinitely.

In fact I'm pretty sure I remember learning there is actually a formula used for complex calculations to account for this inconsistency of the number 1 that takes this into account for "Error Correction" purposes to get a more accurate answer when dealing with large amounts of data and large numbers.

Of course I am by no means insinuating that everything you think will automatically become reality... and everything you want to happen will happen.
I don't think it's mere 'rounding errors' which explain libtards being notoriously bad at math... but your demonstration of the principle is taken as corroboration of Rule #1 describing libtards. :D

By the way, you've not falsified '1+1=2', you've merely chosen a flawed formalism and conflated it to the objective fact that '1+1=2'... so you've used a logical flaw to try to falsify an objective fact, and you've failed. :-[

Now go on to the second part.

"Why is 3-3=5 true?"

Good luck.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 03:51 PM
But everything you want to happen there is a way of making happen no matter how ridiculous the idea is, but that's my own personal belief. It doesn't mean I'm going to try and materialize something out of thin air and its just going to happen because I wished it to, but I could question scientifically how to make something materialize, and there may even be an answer and method for doing that.
You have a wonderful opportunity to prove me wrong! All you have to do is wish really, really hard that pink unicorns farting pixie dust exist, and that it's found that the pixie dust is the impetus for gravity.

Try clicking your heels and crossing your fingers. You have your lucky rabbit's foot, right? Knock on wood. :rofl:

Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #64,  »Last edited
3 - 3 = 5

Its true because its written write above what I'm typing right now and two more times in the thread.

The thing is its also been written 3 - 3 = 0 more times than its been written 3 - 3 = 5 since arithmetic has existed.

Our collective reality is defined by our collective consciousness and our collective reality effects our individual consciousness.

It is what ever you want it to be, but it also is what ever it is and what everyone else believes it is.

I mean we can argue about this till the end of time... I'm just surprised you were never presented the 1/3 fraction as a decimal issue when defining 1 because it is covered and demonstrated by some math teachers and professors and then you claim it to be a demonstration only liberals would explain.

It always comes back to Liberals versus Conservatives with half of your answers on these subjects and I get the feeling you've painted me as a Liberal or a Libtard lol.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #65,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 04:06 PM
3 - 3 = 5

Its true because its written write above what I'm typing right now and two more times in the thread.

The thing is its also been written 3 - 3 = 0 more times than its been written 3 - 3 = 5 since arithmetic has existed.

Our collective reality is defined by our collective consciousness and our collective reality effects our individual consciousness.

It is what ever you want it to be, but it also is what ever it is and what everyone else believes it is.

I mean we can argue about this till the end of time... I'm just surprised you were never presented the 1/3 fraction as a decimal issue when defining 1 because it is covered and demonstrated by some math teachers and professors and then you claim it to be a demonstration only liberals would explain.
It's still a logical fallacy conflated to an objective truth, and thus fails to falsify that objective truth. That you would try to use it without realizing that speaks volumes about the shifting sands of your belief system... a belief system which the socialists throughout history have exploited.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 04:06 PM
It always comes back to Liberals versus Conservatives with half of your answers on these subjects and I get the feeling you've painted me as a Liberal or a Libtard lol.
Ah, "New Math"... that explains why libtards are notoriously bad at math.

You're so inculcated that you're living Orwell's book 1984. You've accepted it without question... you are the sheeple steeped in DoubleThink that The Party relies upon to remain in power.

Or are you simply a brain-washed Stalinist?


Your kind of thinking would take us back to the dystopian thinking of the Stalinists and the Nazis, you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

By the way, your way of thinking used to be listed in the dictionary (including that 2+2=5 example) from as far back as 1728... under the word "absurd".

And that ties into yet another rule describing libtards:
3) They have no sense of history.

Let me guess... you voted for Obama simply because he asserted that we "needed change".. without once considering the ramifications of that change. He said it so it must be true, according to you.

Say, did you know people who display such delusional thought processes are able to get oxygen directly from water in order to breathe, so they can live underwater? Go on, try it. Someone said it, so it must be true.

 :laughing:
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #66,  »Last edited by Cycle
You get those pink unicorns farting pixie dust to pop into existence yet?

Oh, before I forget... you owe every member of OSE $10,000.00 US each. It's been written, so it must be true. That's your own belief system at work, so don't blame me for your being destitute afterward.

 :rofl:
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #67,  »
You owe every member of OSE $10,000.00 US each. It's been written, so it must be true. That's your own belief system at work, so don't blame me for your being destitute afterward.

Look! It's been written twice! That makes it twice as true as it was before!

 :clap:
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #68,  »Last edited by Cycle
You owe every member of OSE $10,000.00 US each. It's been written, so it must be true. That's your own belief system at work, so don't blame me for your being destitute afterward.

That's three times it's been asserted! If I'd known making money was as easy as just saying people owed it to me, I never would have spent all those years studying nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and various and sundry other BSM theories!

Hey everyone!  Apoc4lypse is handing out money! All you have to do is assert that he owes it to you, and it's a big payday for you!

Remember to come back and get more anytime you need it... his belief system leaves him no choice but to pay up. Ostensibly, he won't even have a defense in court if he doesn't pay up and you sue him for the money... after all, he's written that whatever is written is "true"... and according to him, whatever is written more must be "more true".

 :-D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #69,  »
Still waiting on you popping those pink unicorns farting pixie dust into existence... maybe you're not wishing hard enough.

You should try wishing upon a star... I've heard that works. And look! It's written, so it must be true!
 :D

Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #70,  »Last edited
Well cycle, you've done a great job, now I'm both a liberal extremist and apparently a socialist trying to become a nazi all at the same time. :shocked:

I've never voted because I know its all rigged. I only just registered to vote this year, and I'm not even sure I'll bother voting.

Thank you for confirming that you do see me as a Liberal Extremist and not only that but a socialist too...

Your so far off the mark on my political stance simply because I disagree with your views of reality and politics. Your becoming your own version of a Libtard but with Conservative views instead by refusing to see other peoples points of view just as a Liberal extremist refuses to see any benefits of Conservatism and tradition. Why don't we call it what it is... being Closed Minded. :fdrum:

I'd say something else but honestly I know your just going to glance at it and then form another rebuttal to anything I say because apparently your logic is better than everyone else's (now that's delusional thinking). You didn't even respond to the fact that the 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 problem is covered in some schools and universities and ignored it and labeled it libtard thinking. :roll:

Anyway, I'm not going to talk about anything political on this forum anymore, its a waste of time and energy.

If I bring up anymore concepts on altering reality ever again it will be based in forms of scientific reasoning like the fact that our minds can actually alter matter on a subatomic level via the concentration and transmission of fields within the brain and the body and yes there have been experiments done in relation to this subject with mixed results some proving it and some disproving it but I question the control of the experiments themselves as we know very little about this concept right now in scientific terms as its unknown territory and the double slit experiment is really the only thing that proves it could be possible but there are different interpretations of that experiment.

You completely missed the the point of what I was saying about numbers and facts by the way...

This is getting tiresome... and I don't like people insinuating that I'm a nazi when half my family is jewish.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #71,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
Well cycle, you've done a great job, now I'm both a liberal extremist and apparently a socialist trying to become a nazi all at the same time. :shocked:

I've never voted because I know its all rigged. I only just registered to vote this year, and I'm not even sure I'll bother voting.

Thank you for confirming that you do see me as a Liberal Extremist and not only that but a socialist too...
Your own words put truth to your denials. You think and act exactly like a brainwashed liberal... you can say anything you like about what you believe yourself to be (I notice more and more blatantly obvious liberals denying their liberalism as the democrat party and their CAGW scam implodes), but what you write here paints an entirely different story to your denials.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
Your so far off the mark on my political stance
So simply because you've not voted at all (by your own admission), that makes you a "not a liberal"?
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
simply because I disagree with your views of reality and politics.
There are no "views of reality", there is only reality. It is objective. Your continued insistence that reality is subjective is part and parcel of your admitted mental illness. If you have no anchor to reality, what did you expect your brain to do, given that it's evolved to pattern-match and alter its behavior to best ensure survival? With a shifting reality such as you believe in, it doesn't know what to do, so it goes a bit... erm, crazy. Right?

You should give Objectivism a try... you'll likely be much saner for it.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
Your becoming your own version of a Libtard but with Conservative views instead by refusing to see other peoples points of view
You mean I refuse to waste my time considering points of view which are absurd on their face. That's a Good Thing.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
just as a Liberal extremist refuses to see any benefits of Conservatism and tradition. Why don't we call it what it is... being Closed Minded. :fdrum:
It's not "closed-minded" to exclude views which are demonstrably deluded and detrimental to existence. It's common sense, which you've amply demonstrated you lack.

Did you manage to get those pink unicorns farting pixie dust to pop into existence yet? No?! You're not trying hard enough. Really, do you want people to consider your failure to prove me wrong as my being right? You'd better try much harder. :D
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
I'd say something else but honestly I know your just going to glance at it and then form another rebuttal to anything I say because apparently your logic is better than everyone else's (now that's delusional thinking). You didn't even respond to the fact that the 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 problem is covered in some schools and universities and ignored it and labeled it libtard thinking. :roll:
It's a logical flaw, a rounding error, and you've attempted to apply that logical flaw to falsify an objective truth. If you can't see the absurdity of your attempt, you're beyond any mathematical help anyone can give you.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
Anyway, I'm not going to talk about anything political on this forum anymore, its a waste of time and energy.
You've said that before, yet you keep crawling back to bleat more libtard mewlings.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
If I bring up anymore concepts on altering reality ever again it will be based in forms of scientific reasoning like the fact that our minds can actually alter matter on a subatomic level
No, no our minds cannot "alter matter on a subatomic level"... that's metaphysical bunkum. The universe is deterministic. Our misunderstanding of it has led some off into the brambles of metaphysicalism, but that doesn't change objective reality no matter how hard you wish.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
via the concentration and transmission of fields within the brain and the body
Strange that these "fields within the brain and body" have never been scientifically double-blind studied, nor proven to even exist, let alone "alter matter on a subatomic level".
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
and yes there have been experiments done in relation to this subject with mixed results some proving it and some disproving it
It only takes the valid results from one experiment to null an hypothesis. I note you've not provided any links to double-blind studies that haven't engaged in p-hacking. Let's see if you can accomplish that, eh?
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
but I question the control of the experiments themselves as we know very little about this concept right now in scientific terms as its unknown territory and the double slit experiment is really the only thing that proves it could be possible but there are different interpretations of that experiment.
I encourage you to peruse my prior posts in which I discuss this... the previous results of the double-slit experiments were a result of our introducing errors into the process by interacting with the system, then misinterpreting the results... a new experiment which greatly reduces this unwanted interaction shows the universe to be deterministic.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 06:16 PM
You completely missed the the point of what I was saying about numbers and facts by the way...

This is getting tiresome... and I don't like people insinuating that I'm a nazi when half my family is jewish.
Your failed attempt at claiming I insinuated that you were a Nazi is noted. I stated that your way of thinking would lead us back to the dystopian thinking of the Stalinists and the Nazis, and I inquired if you were a brain-washed Stalinist. I also emphatically stated that you're a sheeple so inculcated with 1984 DoubleThink that you haven't bothered to even so much as question it.

Do try to keep your "facts" straight, won't you? :D

haxar

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #72,  »
Repeat a lie enough, it becomes "truth."

Apparently, a lie had to be made to cover up the truth.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #73,  »Last edited by Cycle
Getting back to the topic at hand:

As regards the so-called "consensus" which some of the more deluded and non-thinking use as an appeal to authority to justify their continued religious belief in something which has been proven to be scientifically impossible:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html
The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
Quote
The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think  that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.

However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.
They didn't even get the arithmetic right. 75 out of 79 is 94.9367%, which is 95% rounded to 2 significant digits.

This further corroborates Rule #1 to describe libtards:
1) They are notoriously bad at math.
 :rofl:

haxar

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #74,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 05:39 PM
That's three times it's been asserted! If I'd known making money was as easy as just saying people owed it to me, I never would have spent all those years studying nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and various and sundry other BSM theories!
Corporations, or strawmen, exchange commercial paper, such as promissory notes, by banking law.

The "Federal Reserve" creatures-from-Jekyll-island had a big stake in the Fed Act.
Quote from the Rothschilds
Give me control of a Nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.
Rothschilds' wanted control over a Nation's lawful money supply, so that they could lien everything for their benefit (a.k.a. taxation), via Fed Act.

The taxman has jurisdiction because a lien exists. The role of the I.R.S. is obvious with a "Notice of Lien," since they're only interested in liened private credit from the Fed that you hold as unredeemed notes. Fortunately, they cannot dispute lawful money, or they'd spill the beans.

The redemption clause by restricted endorsement of all items for deposit is the only way out of the legal matrix and into the lawful private common law side.

Legislation is how they installed this current banking system, and for every other bankrupted country. Libya recently went bankrupt by this Western influence.

Of course it's not taught in school...