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
Lol againI agree the idea that you have balls is laughable.
Having balls would be more like going back to the point in the lake thread where you realized that if you were to follow the evidence it was leading you off the biblical errancy cliff and address the reason that you immediately pivoted to the "elephant in the room" that you can't just pretend there wasn't a flood just because the evidence points to the fact that there wasn't a flood.This might be worth quoting here and there, now and again.
Has anyone ever mentioned that FX seems to have a similar all/some/none problem to the one Hawkins has?
This article proposes a sort of virtual exit for all blue states. It's extremely rose-tinted, but I think parts are already in progress.Given, as he acknowledges, Trump voters already live in their own world of alternative facts, I can't see how making things worse for them would somehow make them see the error of their ways. It would just make them double down, like everything does. Anything bad is always somehow the fault of the liberals. How would any of this change that?
Nazi Germany is the popular metaphor, but I'm starting to think Trump's America may actually be more like North Korea. Red America will remain always and forever the greatest nation on the planet, even as they starve to death, praise Dear Leader!
No, you know the output the model will produce if it is accurate, which is why it's a useful test. You do not know beforehand what the outcome of that test will be.You dump the initial data into the model, the model tells you its analysis of that data, you compare that to reality, the correspondence is extremely good.
Now it's the genius of fucking hindcasting. It's like dealing with exceptionally retarded witch doctors.
Why is that not impressive if the reality has already happened?
Because you already knew the outcome in advance you fucking halfwit.
That would be a problem for someone who expected some arbitrary level of accuracy from any single model. I'm sure everyone would love to have a single perfectly accurate climate model, but it's ridiculous to expect such a thing. Fortunately, there is no reason to. The confidence in the models comes from the accuracy of the range of their predictions in aggregate.
What about the Oxy? Surely it takes less of that to kill you than it does acetaminophen, right? And I have to imagine it would be a much less unpleasant experience than acetaminophen OD. Of course there's much less of it in percocet than there is acetaminophen, so
Seriously, if you don't understand why retrodiction is a useful test of scientific models, then you definitely don't have the understanding needed to participate in an argument about scientific models.Yes, I know that it's not a prediction. And it's obvious to the meanest intelligence why the models didn't predict Pinatubo and its effects. Do you understand why? Yes, I know it's a retrodiction. Which is not quite as good as a prediction but is still a strong indication of the accuracy of the model.
There is no fixing this level of thick.
Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it.I'm pretty sure most of us reconcile it by understanding that boiling isn't the only type of liquid-to-gas phase change.
"No useful fucking idiotic tool. No useful fucking idiotic tool. You're the useful fucking idiotic tool." Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
It always amuses me when people who believe in talking snakes take offense when their beliefs are described as magic. I guess it hits a bit too close to home for them.
I don't know how my touch screen on my iPhone works... So I guess that's magic too.You're the one who has suggested that we don't need the infrastructure that has made them possible in order to produce them because we don't need it to produce eggs, so, yes, you appear to think they are magic.
Good God. Can't even get the definition of "magic" right.If you don't know or care how it works, then you are treating it as if it is magic.
Except I have a hard time believing you actually don't know considering how many times it's been explained to you. You prefer to pretend you don't know, since the easily understandable explanation of how fertilizer works explains why poop that comes from animals that have eaten the same plants they are fertilizing isn't going to work the way fertilizer that comes from off-site will, and you desperately want to believe it will. The only way for you to continue to believe that is to pretend you don't know how fertilizer works despite having had several discussions about it in the past.
Might as well call this the Dave Hawkins effect...
As a rule, misinformed people do not change their minds once they have been presented with facts that challenge their beliefs. But beyond simply not changing their minds when they should, research shows that they are likely to become more attached to their mistaken beliefs. The factual information "backfires." When people don't agree with you, research suggests that bringing in facts to support your case might actually make them believe you less.
In other words, fighting the ill-informed with facts is like fighting a grease fire with water. It seems like it should work, but it's actually going to make things worse.
To study this, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler (2010) conducted a series of experiments. They had groups of participants read newspaper articles that included statements from politicians that supported some widespread piece of misinformation. Some of the participants read articles that included corrective information that immediately followed the inaccurate statement from the political figure, while others did not read articles containing corrective information at all.
Afterward, they were asked a series of questions about the article and their personal opinions about the issue. Nyhan and Reifler found that how people responded to the factual corrections in the articles they read varied systematically by how ideologically committed they already were to the beliefs that such facts supported. Among those who believed the popular misinformation in the first place, more information and actual facts challenging those beliefs did not cause a change of opinion--in fact, it often had the effect of strengthening those ideologically grounded beliefs.
Jimbo, me ol' festering bucket of duck droppings, this is all down to you not knowing what laminar flow is.Also apparently not knowing that kinetic energy is frame dependent, which was a common theme with the H's too as I recall.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/322169-two-republicans-sign-onto-effort-demanding-trumps-tax-returnsBut Mark Sanford though. How in the fuck is he still a thing?QuoteReps. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) signed a letter urging the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee to ask for copies of Trump's tax documents from the last decade.
The letter was spearheaded by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and signed by most of the 193-member House Democratic Caucus. It argues that letting members of Congress see what's in Trump's tax returns would clear up any questions about whether his business ties offer conflicts of interest.Quote"Disclosure would serve the public interest of clarifying President Trump's conflicts of interest in office, the potential for him to personally benefit from tax reform, and ensure that he is not receiving any preferential treatment from the IRS," the letter states.
"We believe the powerful and respected Committees on Finance and Ways and Means have the responsibility to ensure oversight of the executive branch by requesting a review of President Trump's tax returns and moving toward a formal release of these documents to the public."
Earlier this week, Pascrell forced a House vote on a resolution requesting the last ten years of President Trump's tax returns. It failed on a party-line vote, but Sanford and Jones both voted "present."
They didn't vote for the turnover of the tax returns, but now they sign a letter asking for the tax returns.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well if we refuse to ok him deleting his account, I'm sure his ego will keep him responding.I hope so. It's been way too long since we've had a fun new crackpot. Frankly I already miss him and fervently hope he hasn't already left us.
Rick:I think it might be time for TR's favorite cat to make an appearance in this thread...
And yet you still spew your bullshit while still failing to show me where I claimed "virtual wind" is what causes this to work.
If you allow your ego to get wrapped up in your scientific beliefs you will never make progress. Because you will never break free from the vagueness that allows you to continue to believe that you understand what you actually only believe. The fact that you don't understand the exact physics of how the vehicle goes faster than the wind is not that big of a deal. The fact that you don't understand the exact physics of how the vehicle goes faster than the wind and pretend that you do understand is a big deal. Because this pretentious will stop you from understanding and it will make you look like an ass.
Put your ego aside and start acting like an adult.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, there should really be some sort of Dunning-Kruger emoji.
Have you guys EVER seen someone that's this insulting, this wrong, and this delusional all at the same time?
Oh yeah - humber.
You've designed something that uses mechanics to do directly down wind.i That's great. But instead of admitting that you really don't have a good understanding of how it works you play semantic games and surround yourself with trolls who are too dullwitted to recognize this shortcoming. That's sad.
He also seems to be equating apparent wind with frame of reference, which is just...I mean where do you start with that?I think what he meant to say was that the angle between the apparent wind and the chord of the foil in question (sail, in this case) is the same as the angle of attack. At least I hope that is what he meant to say.You have to about be mentally retarded to think that apparent wind (which is the same as angle of attack in aerodynamics) is itself a source of energy.
Now that's classic humber right there! Apparent wind is the same as angle of attack!? BRILLIANT!!! And this guy is telling people to learn aerodynamics!? I couldn't come up with this shit if I tried.
But he's still confused about the result, of course.
Actually n/m, people like you that feel a constant stream of hyperbole and invective are fine discourse regularly engage in forms of gaslighting and misattribution. It's pathetic, actually.
You think you're curious. What you are though is unhinged and I don't feel comfortable making it any worse than it already is. So long and I hope things work out for you ok.
LOL. Nice of you to do your best to prove him right. Was that a purposeful troll, or are you actually incapable of refraining from hyperbole, invective, and gaslighting even in direct response to a post that explicitly describes your behavior that way?
In my experience, they start talking about the Rothschild's and the trilateral commission or else they get in their Mercedes paid for by the fossil fuel industry but maybe that's just me.
Sometimes they complain about
the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.Which is always ironic considering...
140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Or they might refer to left-leaning but well respected newspapers like The Guardian as
the most rabid of partisan online sources.Might as well just call it "Fake News" and complete the transition to full-on Trump worship.
If you're very lucky, they might describe any politician who simply states that the science is settled and suggests we take action based on it as
Quote from: Cephus0
screeching so from his pulpit
But the best is when they put forth their own special theories like
Quote from: Cephus0
it appears that what may well have happened was that Mags Thatcher in her wish to promote the nuclear power option approached the Royal Society with a pile of cash on the table to validate the then crackpot fringe AGW hypothesis - and so they of course did and the rest is ever expanding bullshit from there.
Looking forward to the climate change version of Project Steve.