This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - BenTheBiased
No, not in the sense that mathematical formulas can be proven. In science, repeated success of a theory to make predictions makes it a useful model. It doesn't prove it true in some absolute sense. But that's kind of a side issue. My point was that proving a theory true and proving it false are two distinct concepts. The latter is possible in science. The former is not. The Big Bang could be proven false, so it is a scientific theory.So, you are telling me that huge swaths of Newtonian mathematics that correspond over and over and over again with observable phenomena are not considered proven? Surely, you jest..Testable predictions that could be the result of something else.That's why you can't prove a theory true in science. But the Big Bang would still be falsified if those predictions were wrong.
Testable predictions that could be the result of something else.That's why you can't prove a theory true in science. But the Big Bang would still be falsified if those predictions were wrong.
Or I guess it would be if he ever paid on his bets.
I've heard it said that Portuguese is a combination of Spanish and French.
Anyone ever played poker with Hawkins? Seems like pretty easy money.
There are a bunch of clips where people have removed the laughter. I think the overall effect is that the pauses where the actors are waiting for the laughter to subside before delivering their next line tend to come off as vaguely creepy...
Maybe equally disturbing is the fact that it actually doesn't have a laugh track. It's filmed in front of a live studio audience. Those are real people actually laughing because they think the show is funny.true, as a general point, but it feels wrong not to finish by emphasizing that the show itself is just godawfully unfunny. the fact that its ratings keep going up anyway proves there is no justice in the world.More importantly, it's a crap TV show.You can tell because it has a laugh track.
I hate hate hate laugh tracks.
As for the US cooling trend, it shows up clearly in the data. Even GISS hasn't adjusted the data enough to remove the puzzling "warming hole".Yes, it's interesting that certain areas during certain times of the year show cooling trends over certain periods while the global average for the year as a whole shows a warming trend. It's not amazing, and it doesn't mean that climate science is bullshit, but it's interesting.
True. It was a blatant lie anyway. Unclear antecedents can be a great source of humor.
Just as a clue, if our data set happened to be planetary surface temperatures between, but not inclusive of, the orbits of Mercury and Mars and we determine an average temperature for that set - do you think there would be outliers?BTW, I bet this is a pretty devastating point in the argument with the strawman "alarmist" you always seem to think you're having.
Have you considered how many standard deviations away from the mean a data point should be in order to be considered as an outlier?Not really, since I was just using it informally to make the point that it shouldn't really be considered "amazing" that data points may differ from the average. Based on your post, it seems you agree.
I mean by definition, yes, any data points that differ significantly from the average are outliers.
That there could be any NH cold season trend that shows cooling, while the global mean is rising "faster than ever" is an amazing thingIf the idea that an average can contain outliers amazes you I guess.
Quote from: F X date=15Jim07388730 link=msg=123425
What was unclear about what I said? Winters in the contiguous U.S., one of the major areas you've been going on about showing a cooling trend from 1995 to 2014, show a warming trend from 1994 to 2017. And over most other time periods you could choose over the past 130 years.if you extend the trend by just 4 years, making it 1994-2017, it's a warming trend.What is a warming trend?
Ok, got it sorted.Yup, that's it.
2016 - Trump (MRGA!)
2020 - Pence (hallelujah!)
2024 - Pence (glory!)
2028 - Trump (karks it in office)
2030 - Lisa Simpson (too late anyway)
ETA: Of course this means she'll be Trump's running mate in 2028. I guess he'll be senile enough by then that pretty much anyone could get that job.
Grover Cleveland, but yeah, that is a possibility I hadn't thought of.But 2030? Does that mean Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and then Lisa will be elected in 2024, and re-elected in 2028? Or, even worse, some sort of authoritarian maneuvering keeps Trump in office until 2030 at which point some sort of coup will take place that will restore democratic elections that will then put Lisa in office? Not sure either scenario is worth it.One president (Calvin Coolidge) has held non-sequential terms as president in the 1870's and 1880's. That was before the two term limit but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Fake ETA: Osmanthus
ETA: But Trump is too old even now.
Even in the contiguous U.S., one of your all-important "areas where a lot of people actually live," if you extend the trend by just 4 years, making it 1994-2017, it's a warming trend. So why is a 20-year cooling trend more significant to you than a 24-year warming trend that encompasses it?
Also, want to guess what happens if you add the last three winters in there? Hell, even just 2015 would do it.
But 2030? Does that mean Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and then Lisa will be elected in 2024, and re-elected in 2028? Or, even worse, some sort of authoritarian maneuvering keeps Trump in office until 2030 at which point some sort of coup will take place that will restore democratic elections that will then put Lisa in office? Not sure either scenario is worth it.
Fake ETA: Osmanthus
Fake ETA: Osmanthus
Ah, I see, so when you said "global," you were actually only referring to about 30% of the globe. That makes sense.
Then your comment was utterly irrelevant to Pingu's.You still don't understand that not every ecosystem is the same.of course I do. But that is not relevant to the point that I am making which is that almost every ecosystem on earth is designed to be a synergy between plants AND animals. Yes the plants will be different ... yes the animals will be different.
But everywhere it's the same that there is (or should be) that synergy between plants and animals.
the "warm" winters of 16/17Also, why is "warm" in scare quotes here? Is it just because it's weird to talk about winter being warm? Because 2016 and 2017 were respectively the 1st and 7th warmest winters on record for the contiguous U.S.
To put this "cooling trend" (yes, scare quotes is deserved here) in perspective, the year you were banging on about it, 2014, was not even a top 30 coldest winter on record for the U.S. Hell, 2010, the coldest winter the U.S. has had since 1985, wasn't even in the top 20! That's how much of a dent this "cooling trend" has made. The coldest winter of the past 30 years was not even a top-20 coldest winter.