Trump pardoning war criminals...

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
If, for example, you were linking to a peer reviewed study containing relevant information on the topic being discussed, yes.

If you're just ranting "go find stuff on Youtube! It's on Youtube!"

No.

Here we go with the "peer review" scam. The AGW theologians have seized control of Federal and most private funding as well as purging the staff of most journals to ensure that with few exceptions, only their propaganda can get published.

I challenge you to derive a simple equation in the hope of inspiring you to think for yourself ( or admit that you are to stupid to derive the equation) so you begin spewing about "peer review."

Would you demand that I cite a peer review study if I asked you to calculate what

2+2 =

for yourself?


You truly are an idiot a bigot.

All that as a response to the basic statement that referring to peer reviewed scientific research was of a different and superior class altogether to a demand someone randomly browse YouTube looking for content that would support your argument because you can;t be bothered to present an argument on your own.

A statement which, outside the realm of unhinged lunatics, is completely uncontroversial.

This is why it's impossible to have a rational informed discussion with you TFLY. You have nothing but contempt for actual knowledge whenever it contradicts your dearly held prejudices, and so instead of learning from experts in the fields you are debating you instead hurl invective at them, invoke grand conspiracies, then turn for comfort to whatever random bloviating idiot you can find on the internet who is saying you are right and declaring them the true guardians of The Truth! Seizing on some little bit of trivia on the topic and invoking it like some kind of magic incantation that shows how very very learned and informed you and your favorite internet ranter are compared to all those fraud experts who have spent their entire careers engaged in serious rigorous research on the subject and blissfully convinced you know far more than all of them.

You are like the Dunning Kruger effect made flesh.

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:



Here we go with the "peer review" scam. The AGW theologians have seized control of Federal and most private funding as well as purging the staff of most journals to ensure that with few exceptions, only their propaganda can get published.

I challenge you to derive a simple equation in the hope of inspiring you to think for yourself ( or admit that you are to stupid to derive the equation) so you begin spewing about "peer review."

Would you demand that I cite a peer review study if I asked you to calculate what

2+2 =

for yourself?


You truly are an idiot a bigot.

All that as a response to the basic statement that referring to peer reviewed scientific research was of a different and superior class altogether to a demand someone randomly browse YouTube looking for content that would support your argument because you can;t be bothered to present an argument on your own.

A statement which, outside the realm of unhinged lunatics, is completely uncontroversial.

This is why it's impossible to have a rational informed discussion with you TFLY. You have nothing but contempt for actual knowledge whenever it contradicts your dearly held prejudices, and so instead of learning from experts in the fields you are debating you instead hurl invective at them, invoke grand conspiracies, then turn for comfort to whatever random bloviating idiot you can find on the internet who is saying you are right and declaring them the true guardians of The Truth! Seizing on some little bit of trivia on the topic and invoking it like some kind of magic incantation that shows how very very learned and informed you and your favorite internet ranter are compared to all those fraud experts who have spent their entire careers engaged in serious rigorous research on the subject and blissfully convinced you know far more than all of them.

You are like the Dunning Kruger effect made flesh.

I never asked you to browse YouTube.

I asked you to derive a simple equation.

It is High School level algebra and Freshman level physics.

Even you should be able to do it!

Here is a hint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I never asked you to browse YouTube.

I asked you to derive a simple equation.

It is High School level algebra and Freshman level physics.

Even you should be able to do it!

Here is a hint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

If you want to make an argument, make it. This posturing gives the impression that your conclusion won't stand up to scrutiny and that you're trying to lead people by the nose into making the same errors you have.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:2+2 =

Well, if it's Base 4, 10.
Base 3 is 11.

Let me quote from the webcomic Freefall.
"There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that's not wrong."

Please explain your reasoning, tfly.
You over-simplify things too much, a bit like the Indian Parliament did when they temporarily decided that Pi equaled three.
Reality is not simple. Simple equations have very limited use in very specific circumstances. The kinetic energy equation does not translate well to calculating the surface of a sphere.
Please show us (and I mean show, rather than rant) that you are using the right equation with the right assumptions.
And remember that for many years, Bumblebees couldn't fly from a mathematical viewpoint.

Totally concur Michael.
I've been involved (in a galaxy far far away and long ago) in writing complex computer code, so have a little understanding. When teams of very bright people get together to program super computers to research climate related matters, there will be much complexity.
Overall management will coordinate, meteorologists will bring in gigabytes of raw data, mathematicians will sort out algorithms, then programmers will write programs to use those algorithms to analyse the data, (using other computers to assist in the writing). At the end of it, systems analysts will interpret the results.
To suggest that people should use simple algebra to prove their understanding is nonsensical.

Daryl wrote:To suggest that people should use simple algebra to prove their understanding is nonsensical.

the Australians amongst us should find this very amusing, but simple algebra proves that all Kangaroos are dead.

The logic is simple. Scientists worked out how much energy it takes to make a mass equal to one Kangaroo jump one meter. They multiplied that by the number of jumps a Kangaroo made in a day and compared that to the calorific intake.
End result? Kangaroos did not eat enough to power all the jumps they made, therefore all the Kangaroos were dead.

The scientists forgot to take into consideration that Kangaroos bounce rather than jump, thus massively lowering the amount of energy needed and bringing it to within observed calorific intake.

Moral of the story? Simplifying problems is a great way to go wrong with confidence.

Michael Everett wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:2+2 =

Well, if it's Base 4, 10.
Base 3 is 11.

Let me quote from the webcomic Freefall.
"There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that's not wrong."

Please explain your reasoning, tfly.
You over-simplify things too much, a bit like the Indian Parliament did when they temporarily decided that Pi equaled three.
Reality is not simple. Simple equations have very limited use in very specific circumstances. The kinetic energy equation does not translate well to calculating the surface of a sphere.
Please show us (and I mean show, rather than rant) that you are using the right equation with the right assumptions.
And remember that for many years, Bumblebees couldn't fly from a mathematical viewpoint.

Interesting that you respond to a simple question to add 2*10^0 + 2*10^0 by spewing a bunch of bovine scatology about 2*4^2 + 2*4^1 and 2*3^2 + 2*3^1. This demonstrates that you at least understand some mathematical concepts (but still miscalculated the base 3 addition). The problem is that you are simply to bigoted to actually do the math and have an honest discussion.

You need to have a discussion about the holy Peer Review process with Proffessor Parker.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Interesting that you respond to a simple question to add 2*10^0 + 2*10^0 by spewing a bunch of bovine scatology about 2*4^2 + 2*4^1 and 2*3^2 + 2*3^1. This demonstrates that you at least understand some mathematical concepts (but still miscalculated the base 3 addition). The problem is that you are simply to bigoted to actually do the math and have an honest discussion.

Bigoted?
Bigoted?
I guess I am.
As a result of being English, I'm only bigoted against 'murikuns.
Note, I am not bigoted against Americans, only 'murikuns.
What is a 'murikun, you ask?
A 'murikun is someone who instantly resorts to insults when errors in their logic are pointed out, who rant on about sexual conquests that only existed in their underpowered minds, who are obviously compensating for their unfortunate physical deficiencies by going on about their firearms (or belittling firearms owned by other people), who rely on inferior levels of insults (mainly scatology/sexual) as they never progressed beyond thirteen in their mental development. This is made worse by the fact that the Dunning-Kruger effect is their default state of being and they are limited to the lower bounds of it.
Oh yes, and they cannot pursue an argument more than two steps beyond "No, you!" or "Yo mama!"

So, Tfly, given this explanation which I have graciously provided to assist you in removing any intellectual impediments to your ability to see through your own preconceptions and thus behold the truth of the situation which actually obtains, why do you think I'm bigoted against you when I am only bigoted against 'murikuns?

I must also ask you to learn the difference between to, too and two. *to bigoted* indeed. It should have been *too with an extra o. If you are going to try and attack me, get it right.

but still miscalculated the base 3 addition

In base 3 we have
1 (one = 1)
2 (two = 2) (1 + 1)
10 (three = 3*1) (2 + 1)
11 (four = 3*1 + 1) (2 + 2) - the answer I gave
12 (five = 3*1 + 2) (2 + 2 + 1)
20 (six = 3*2) (2 + 2 + 2)etc
Please tell me how you think I got the Base 3 addition wrong in my previous post.

Michael Everett wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Interesting that you respond to a simple question to add 2*10^0 + 2*10^0 by spewing a bunch of bovine scatology about 2*4^2 + 2*4^1 and 2*3^2 + 2*3^1. This demonstrates that you at least understand some mathematical concepts (but still miscalculated the base 3 addition). The problem is that you are simply to bigoted to actually do the math and have an honest discussion.

Bigoted?
Bigoted?
I guess I am.
As a result of being English, I'm only bigoted against 'murikuns.
Note, I am not bigoted against Americans, only 'murikuns.
What is a 'murikun, you ask?
A 'murikun is someone who instantly resorts to insults when errors in their logic are pointed out, who rant on about sexual conquests that only existed in their underpowered minds, who are obviously compensating for their unfortunate physical deficiencies by going on about their firearms (or belittling firearms owned by other people), who rely on inferior levels of insults (mainly scatology/sexual) as they never progressed beyond thirteen in their mental development. This is made worse by the fact that the Dunning-Kruger effect is their default state of being and they are limited to the lower bounds of it.
Oh yes, and they cannot pursue an argument more than two steps beyond "No, you!" or "Yo mama!"

So, Tfly, given this explanation which I have graciously provided to assist you in removing any intellectual impediments to your ability to see through your own preconceptions and thus behold the truth of the situation which actually obtains, why do you think I'm bigoted against you when I am only bigoted against 'murikuns?

I must also ask you to learn the difference between to, too and two. *to bigoted* indeed. It should have been *too with an extra o. If you are going to try and attack me, get it right.

but still miscalculated the base 3 addition

In base 3 we have
1 (one = 1)
2 (two = 2) (1 + 1)
10 (three = 3*1) (2 + 1)
11 (four = 3*1 + 1) (2 + 2) - the answer I gave
12 (five = 3*1 + 2) (2 + 2 + 1)
20 (six = 3*2) (2 + 2 + 2)etc
Please tell me how you think I got the Base 3 addition wrong in my previous post.

Very funny math joke. You didn't specify if you were doing the calculation in Base 3 or expressing the answer in Base 3. I reasonably interpreted your answer as I indicated.

I don't apologise for not being careful to ensure that my spell checker is not screwing up my already sloppy spelling.

Since you have such a fetish for peer review, contemplate these papers:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/12/the ... e-climate/

It is obviously futile to attempt to discuss the basic concepts with you. While it is obvious that you do have the basic intelligence and education to understand, it is equally obvious that you are unwilling to consider any information that might conflict with your religion.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Very funny math joke. You didn't specify if you were doing the calculation in Base 3 or expressing the answer in Base 3. I reasonably interpreted your answer as I indicated.

Interesting how you only made one interpretation rather than considering that different people think in different ways... and chose a rather obscure interpretation on top of that...

I don't apologise for not being careful to ensure that my spell checker is not screwing up my already sloppy spelling.

...have you ever apologized on this forum? You didn't even spell the word correctly...

Since you have such a fetish for peer review, contemplate these papers:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/12/the-list-grows-now-100-scientific-papers-assert-co2-has-a-minuscule-effect-on-the-climate/

...I do not see how my previous posts indicate such a fetish. Please provide the quotes from my previous posts that support such a conclusion or I shall be forced to assume that you are simply projecting.

It is obviously futile to attempt to discuss the basic concepts with you. While it is obvious that you do have the basic intelligence and education to understand, it is equally obvious that you are unwilling to consider any information that might conflict with your religion.

I have the basic concepts. I have more than basic intelligence, my education is quite good and I will consider any information that is given to me in a coherent and rational manner. Random links in place of posts do not count.
The issue may be that I try to apply rational cogitation to a problem instead of emotion and expect others to do the same. I look down on those who devolve to strawman arguments, extreme over-simplification and/or insults at the drop of a (metaphorical) hat.

And you still haven't explained why I should be bigoted against you.