25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhBeyond refute right?
Yo, homey.
The gig is up.
The data has been cooked and your side lost.
Oddly enough, it really doesn't matter which of the sides "won," since in the end, we all lose as a result.
It's always been about the argument, and they have always been about giving a side to root for, to cheer for, to fight for, to die for, to kill for.
We lost as soon as we started arguing.
25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI'm not saying there's no truth.
Beyond refute right?
I'm saying their game doesn't include it, although they have some real-nice shiny things that can keep even smart folks distracted.
Time to wake up, people!
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI'm not asking for the definition according to a dictionary. I'm asking for your opinion of reasonable accuracy so I know what you will accept and what you will not. I think you knew that though.
Which one do you want to discuss? You still haven't answered any of my questions. Why does Dr. Spencer think that action on climate change will kill poor people?
"Reasonable accuracy" is statistically insignificant deviation between predictions and observations.
You are just avoiding answering the question so I can't pin you down with proof that meets your personal criteria. If you don't feel comfortable answering the question because it is hard to answer with specificity just say so. I would understand that.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainReread. I did answer the question with specificity.
I'm not asking for the definition according to a dictionary. I'm asking for your opinion of reasonable accuracy so I know what you will accept and what you will not. I think you knew that though.
You are just avoiding answering the question so I can't pin you down with proof that meets your personal criteria. If you don't feel comfortable answering the question because it is hard to answer with specificity just say so. I would understand that.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhWho is 'They'?
I'm not saying there's no truth.
I'm saying their game doesn't include it, although they have some real-nice shiny things that can keep even smart folks distracted.
Time to wake up, people!
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAh, like Donald Trump. Got it.
"They" are the nefarious individuals who manage to fool all of the world's most brilliant people and most distinguished experts, but not a few trailer-dwelling neckbeards.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhat dafuq is a neckbeard?
"They" are the nefarious individuals who manage to fool all of the world's most brilliant people and most distinguished experts, but not a few trailer-dwelling neckbeards.
Do you have anything original?
Have some pride.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhPlease talk about science for a change. Explain what you're talking about. Show me a data-driven conclusion.
What dafuq is a neckbeard?
Do you have anything original?
Have some pride.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrass"Science: For a Change"
Please talk about science for a change. Explain what you're talking about. Show me a data-driven conclusion.
Maybe someone ought to run on that platform.
The last one to use that key word (change) seemed to do pretty well, ambition-wise.
We've been discussing something science related, albeit more how science has been used as a token carried around like an amulet to shield those holding it from any pesky scrutiny or unwanted criticism.
As we more recently have been informed, not only has there been strident opposition to the conclusions by some climate "experts" by others also considered as equally well-versed, but the contentious conclusions were based on exaggerated and highly-inflated numbers... rendering their conclusions invalid.
Between the collusion, the silenced dissent and now the proof of cooking the books, how much more datum do you require?
How much more science do you think it will take to put this puppy to bed?
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhWho are "those holding it"? What does "strident opposition" refer to? What are these books you're talking about how are they being cooked? How were the conclusions rendered invalid?
"Science: For a Change"
Maybe someone ought to run on that platform.
The last one to use that key word (change) seemed to do pretty well, ambition-wise.
We've been discussing something science related, albeit more how science has been used as a token carried around like an amulet to shield those holding it from any pesky scrutiny or unwanted criticis ...[text shortened]... datum do you require?
How much more science do you think it will take to put this puppy to bed?
Explain what you're talking about. Use data. Published research.
Metal Brain is clearly coming from a position where he'd decided what the data was before reading the article. Since he proved his own premise was incorrect, I'm trying to steer this back to what the actual data shows.
28 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassI am sure I am not the only one that notices he never does. I bet he will never ever give any straight answer to any of those good questions.
Who are "those holding it"? What does "strident opposition" refer to? What are these books you're talking about how are they being cooked? How were the conclusions rendered invalid?
Explain what you're talking about.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou most certainly did not.
Reread. I did answer the question with specificity.
You are simply trying to avoid answering the question, something you dishonestly accused me of doing. You are a hypocrite!
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou are a liar!
Who are "those holding it"? What does "strident opposition" refer to? What are these books you're talking about how are they being cooked? How were the conclusions rendered invalid?
Explain what you're talking about. Use data. Published research.
Metal Brain is clearly coming from a position where he'd decided what the data was before reading the ar ...[text shortened]... oved his own premise was incorrect, I'm trying to steer this back to what the actual data shows.
I never proved my own premise incorrect. You are a pathetic liar!
You always resort to lying after failing to answer good questions in an effort to distract others from your failures. You are pathetic!
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat is your delusion. 67% and 65% consensus was demonstrated in the datasets you presented. You have claimed some level of either "they weren't ALL scientists" or "they didn't ALL respond" but really you are just splitting hairs. Two different datasets with the same conclusion, no datasets with a different conclusion. Objectively speaking, this is non-mythical data.
You are a liar!
I never proved my own premise incorrect. You are a pathetic liar!
You always resort to lying after failing to answer good questions in an effort to distract others from your failures. You are pathetic!