Originally posted by humy
understood 🙂
And this very much applies to Mental...er, I mean, Metal Brain.

When I first encountered imaginary numbers, I refused to accept that there is a number, when you multiply it with itself you get -1. Impossible!
When my math teacher introduced this, I stubbornly said 'Rubbish!'.

But I had to face to flunk any test if I continued my robust opinion so I had to accept the fact that this number could be called i. So i*i=-1. Okay, if you say so.

And I gave it a go, started all over again and pretended that it was a fact. I passed the course and I found out that as a game it was just fun. You could do anything with this whole new imaginary number system. Like arithemtics, derivatives, integrations, you could even use sin and cos with numbers greater than +1 and lesser than -1. Really fun! And Eulers formula was a woppey hit!

So I learned this - if you resides in the minority who thinks that an opinion is better than the majorities community, life is more fun! Instead of being backward and negative to all things that you don't understand, it is more enjoyable to learn the majorities views. And you learn a lot more about it too!

Imagine!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When I first encountered imaginary numbers, I refused to accept that there is a number, when you multiply it with itself you get -1. Impossible!
When my math teacher introduced this, I stubbornly said 'Rubbish!'.

But I had to face to flunk any test if I continued my robust opinion so I had to accept the fact that this number could be called i. So i*i= ...[text shortened]... more enjoyable to learn the majorities views. And you learn a lot more about it too!

Imagine!

personally I never had a problem accepting imaginary numbers. That is because I was told right from the start that they are "not real numbers" and I would be perhaps be missing the point of them if I thought they were.
They are an artificial construct used as an abstract tool both in certain mathematical proofs and in important applied physics and I learned from this that, surprisingly, just because something isn't literally "real" (it would be nonsense to say there exists i number of apples although, of course, it is also nonsense to say there exists -1 apples ), doesn't mean it isn't both meaningful and useful.

Originally posted by humy
Most climate scientists say there is man made global warming significant enough in magnitude to eventually and potentially cause thousands if not millions of deaths. And yet I have seen you accuse anyone that in-effect makes the same assertion here as being "alarmist" merely for asserting it. How can this be consistent with your above assertion of;
"Most climate scientists are not alarmists"?
How do you reconcile that?

"Most climate scientists say there is man made global warming significant enough in magnitude to eventually and potentially cause thousands if not millions of deaths."

No, you are wrong. You have always been wrong about that assertion. Most climate scientists say there is man made global warming. That is all. Every time I ask for your source of information on this you fail for a reason. You are flat out WRONG!

Eventually and potentially cause thousands if not millions of deaths is not the scientific consensus. FAIL!

Originally posted by humy
Again, what does the number of times got to do with it? That number is completely irrelevant which is why, and completely contrary to what you appear to be implying here, I implied very little about the number of times. It doesn't matter if it was just once or a trillion trillion times.

"Again, what does the number of times got to do with it?"

A future prediction requires being right the first time, not a trillion times. Climate models cannot predict the past all that well either. When they tried to use them to predict the ice age they failed spectacularly. They still do. Perhaps climate models do not take into account the Milankovich Cycles. I'm not sure. Maybe you can tell me.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Every time I ask for your source of information on this you fail for ...

Let me show you again:
This time, an extremely quick google search (anything more will be wasted on you ) got me:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"...Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. ...."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
"...Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made ..."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains

and if you just bother to ask some of the climate scientists yourself (at one of their public forums ), you will find that most would think it is significant enough to probably cause many human deaths in the future.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

...A future prediction requires being right the first time, not a trillion times. ...

What the hell does that supposed to mean? Who said/implied a prediction needs to be right a trillion times? Not me!
+ I said/implied nothing about how many times a "future" prediction must be right. I have no idea where you got all that from. Go back and read again what I actually said with the word "trillion" in its correct and actual context. Perhaps you read it but somehow took it completely out of its proper context or perhaps you read it too fast and got the totally wrong meaning -I don't know.

Originally posted by humy
Let me show you again:
This time, an extremely quick google search (anything more will be wasted on you ) got me:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"...Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations world ...[text shortened]... hat most would think it is significant enough to probably cause many human deaths in the future.

You have poor reading comprehension.

All you did was confirm that climate scientists agree with me that man is a factor in global warming. None of those links says anything about climate scientists agreeing with your extreme alarmist views.

Even Fred Singer is part of that 97%. He indicates that on this link.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Are you ready to give up yet? You keep calling those links proof and they clearly are not. Surely even you are starting to see where you went wrong by now.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have poor reading comprehension.

All you did was confirm that climate scientists agree with me that man is a factor in global warming. None of those links says anything about climate scientists agreeing with your extreme alarmist views.

Even Fred Singer is part of that 97%. He indicates that on this link.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/deb ...[text shortened]... proof and they clearly are not. Surely even you are starting to see where you went wrong by now.

"...and if you just bother to ask some of the climate scientists yourself (at one of their public forums ), you will find that most would think it is significant enough to probably cause many human deaths in the future...." (my quote I just gave you in that very same post )

I won't waste my time doing it for you! I have a life of my own you know.
+ giving just one example of a climate scientists that disagrees with those that say the man made warming is 'significant' is not evidence that the majority of them also disagree -he is in a minority on that. Can you show any links or sources of information that will prove to all of us here that the MAJORITY of climate scientists disagree that man made global warming is not significant enough to eventually and potentially cause thousands if not millions of human deaths?...

Originally posted by humy
What the hell does that supposed to mean? Who said/implied a prediction needs to be right a trillion times? Not me!
+ I said/implied nothing about how many times a "future" prediction must be right. I have no idea where you got all that from. Go back and read again what I actually said with the word "trillion" in its correct and actual context. Perhaps you read it but somehow took it completely out of its proper context -I don't know.

"What the hell does that supposed to mean? Who said/implied a prediction needs to be right a trillion times? Not me!"

You know what I meant. A future prediction has to be right the first time or it is wrong. There is no trial and error with future predictions. You said they could try a trillion times and still have it right in the end. Even that is incorrect. Matching the past does not insure an equal match in a future prediction. I think you know it too. You are just being stubborn at this point.

Originally posted by humy
"...and if you just bother to ask some of the climate scientists [b]yourself (at one of their public forums ), you will find that most would think it is significant enough to probably cause many human deaths in the future...." (my quote I just gave you in that very same post )

I won't waste my time doing it for you! I have a life of my own you know.[/b]

Oh, so now you are starting to interject the word "probably"?

You are clearly back peddling. Swallow your pride and admit you believed something that wasn't really true. Nobody will fault you too much for it. You certainly are not the only person to make that mistake.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"What the hell does that supposed to mean? Who said/implied a prediction needs to be right a trillion times? Not me!"

You know what I meant. A future prediction has to be right the first time or it is wrong. There is no trial and error with future predictions. You said they could try a trillion times and still have it right in the end. Even that is in ...[text shortened]... atch in a future prediction. I think you know it too. You are just being stubborn at this point.

You know what I meant.

No, I didn't. And I still don't understand your confused logic.

A future prediction has to be right the first time or it is wrong.

Even if it is a prediction of the PROBABILITY of something happening?
Tell all us scientists how that makes any sense....
If I predict that the sum of two roles of a dice is more likely to be 7 than 9 but find I throw a sum of 9, does that mean the prediction of 7 was more likely was wrong?...

There is no trial and error with future predictions.

When you say “future predictions”, are you referring to predictions that predict events that were in the future when the prediction was made but are now in the past? -or do you mean prediction that predicts events that are STILL currently in the future?
I obviously had referred there to the latter, NOT the former, and that means that class of predictions I was referring to CAN be modified and improved in the light of new evidence (from the past -not to be confused with its predictions of the future ) BEFORE the actual future event they predict (which may change with the modifications of the prediction ) becomes apparent. Do you NOW comprehend?...

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Oh, so now you are starting to interject the word "probably"?

where did I say/imply the contrary? And how would it change anything? Do you claim we cannot rationally and scientifically think/say "probably"? You are just nitpicking with words.

Originally posted by humy
where did I say/imply the contrary? And how would it change anything? Do you claim we cannot rationally and scientifically think/say "probably"? You are just nitpicking with words.

He is just using fundamentalistic rhetorics: "When in risk of losing the battle, start picking of words."

Originally posted by humy
where did I say/imply the contrary? And how would it change anything? Do you claim we cannot rationally and scientifically think/say "probably"? You are just nitpicking with words.

This is what you said:

"you will find that most would think it is significant enough to probably cause many human deaths in the future"

You used to be sure that GW would result in millions of deaths, now you say probably. Most climate scientists do NOT say that and you know it. You are being dishonest in a last ditch effort to defend your position.

Tell us all why you are now using the word probably instead of asserting certainty like you used to. You are clearly unsure of your alarmist claims. There is no scientific consensus to support your extreme alarmist opinion.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
This is what you said:

"you will find that most would think it is significant enough to probably cause many human deaths in the future"

You used to be sure that GW would result in millions of deaths, now you say probably. Most climate scientists do NOT say that and you know it. You are being dishonest in a last ditch effort to defend your position. ...[text shortened]... your alarmist claims. There is no scientific consensus to support your extreme alarmist opinion.

So do you think the ocean is not rising? Do you think somehow things are going to magically reverse course and the arctic starts freezing again and the world's glaciers are going to start being glaciers again?

What is YOUR prediction?