Monday morning links

I don't doubt that the Covington diocese was ambushed by a frenzied media, but they couldn't take the time to check out the story, get the other side, talk to the chaperones???? This just doesn't fly.

#1 Exasperated on 2019-01-28 08:51 (Reply)

The trouble with the political correctness movement isn't that it's necessary to stay politically correct - it's that you must ALWAYS be in the FRONT on political correctness lest you be seen as a target.

"You are insufficiently enthusiastic, comrade! What thoughtcrimes are you harboring?"

And the narrative was spinning so fast on Covington the diocese decided it was better to throw the kids under the bus that become a target of the mob.

#1.1 JLawson on 2019-01-28 09:33 (Reply)

Considering the legacy of absolutely filthy laundry the Catholic Church is dragging behind itself (and continuing to generate), my sympathy is less than zero. They seem to have no problem with the comforts and trappings of authority, or of its abuse. They seem to have a major problem with the moral imperative of the responsibility residing within that authority though.

People who live in stained glass houses shouldn't throw stones. We understood that winning the Second World War had to be though the absolute and utter annihilation of the German and Japanese leadership, allowing their cultures to rebuild from the bottom up. Sometimes I think the Catholic Church can only survive with a similar measure.

#1.2 Aggie on 2019-01-28 10:35 (Reply)

I learned 15 years ago that Catholic Schools are always under siege, therefore they "do what it takes" to keep the schools open. With that as their primary focus it is easy to understand how it happened that bishop acted so quickly. The schools philosophy is no longer clear. Moral code has been sold out to party in power. This Bishop should be removed from education.

#2 faculty wife on 2019-01-28 10:13 (Reply)

Our offsprings attended Catholic schools Grade 7 - 12, in part because we wanted them to be in a relatively Christian environment, as opposed to the Gaia worship which the public schools were embracing.

It was interesting. Do remember overhearing a couple of teachers giggling over the encounter between Joseph and Potiphar's wife. I'm Protestant, that story was old hat. But it emphasized that Catholics are not generally Bible-literate.

Offsprings did well in Catholic school, though one offspring was wont to comment - in Grade 12 - that she could be a priest in her faith, and married as well. Said daughter also managed to be one of the students handing out the Eucharist at the graduation Mass. Heard the next year that this had caused somewhat of a scandal; my comment was that, given said daughter was not only a regular church attender but also a Sunday School teacher (she had a food-based curriculum, but that's another story), her religious observance most certainly made her more qualified for that duty than most of her classmates.

#2.1 Frances on 2019-01-28 23:36 (Reply)

"30 top intellectuals" Say that Europeans are beginning to resent their loss of rights and freedom and if they don't buckle under to the left wing government there will be trouble.

I think this is the classic case of the problem that free people will refuse to get into the boxcars to be taken to the concentration camps. Europe will need to create a brown shirt army, begin intimidating the people and even use special prosecutors to make up crimes to put them in jail.

You can vote yourself into socialism but you must shoot your way out of it.

#3 Anon on 2019-01-28 10:18 (Reply)

The elitists are in the process of creating a combined military which will be used to force nationalists into the utopian global euro order. They see the usefulness of Lincolns usurpation of States rights and States self interest. We just can't have that on the way to a new world order.

#3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-28 11:29 (Reply)

Before Stalin's Great Purge there was the slogan: Down with the wreckers! And here we have 30 of the best and the brightest advocating the same.

#3.1.1 SgtBob (Link) on 2019-01-28 18:18 (Reply)

Europe is not falling apart because it was never really joined together to the extent that the elites wanted it to be.

The people were sold on the idea that they could drive across Europe without a passport, but they were delivered was regulation on the number of French fires (Whoops can't call them that unless they actually were made in France) in a serving.

#4 Another guy naed Dan on 2019-01-28 10:26 (Reply)

Why are jews like Maher so bigoted against Christians? What happened to those Judeo-Christian values we are supposed to share?

#5 Rusty on 2019-01-28 10:38 (Reply)

Though his mother was Jewish, Maher is actually a lapsed (Irish-American) Catholic and has a big bee in his bonnet about the Church. Mind you, he doesn't have much time for Judaism or any other religion either.

There's a lot of hot air and huffing-puffing from Maher but, truth is, he's a foul-mouthed blowhard poseur, his salacious commentary passing for substance, which what "comedy" is these days.

#5.1 JJM on 2019-01-28 17:01 (Reply)

Hakeem Jeffries calls Trump the grand wizard. Hakeem seems unaware that the KKK was a Democrat organization. Does Hakeem think Trump is a Democrat? Or does he realize that calling him a Democrat (grand wizard) is an insult. Let's see, what could be a worse insult than calling someone a grand wizard when it's obvious it isn't true? I know, accusing a presidential candidate of sleeping their way to the top and it IS true.

#6 Anon on 2019-01-28 10:41 (Reply)

Ref Pain

This is the kind of thing I worried about. The government (and too many pundits) have gone on such a righteous crusade about opioids, that it's becoming another drug war As with other things, people have to take responsibility. It's not the government's job to lock down everything so people won't hurt themselves.

#7 jay (Link) on 2019-01-28 10:42 (Reply)

Well, then, you'd better get used to kids and teens dying from getting a hold of opioids then. You'd better get used to doped up addicts roaming the streets and more crime. You'd better get used to jails full of drug-addicted people.

It is the government's responsibility in a civilized society to keep it civilized.

FYI, the idea of 'chronic pain' really should be re-examined. Some pain is caused by a lack of conditioning as we age. How would I know? I'm currently trying to straighten out a terrible back pain problem through exercise and physical therapy. It's working, but it takes time and effort on my part.

I told my physical therapist when I first came in that I can understand why some people go the 'easy' route and get heavy pain meds. Hides the underlying issue and lets you function.

I, on the other hand, wanted to FIX the underlying problem so that I could be drug-free. Many people do not want to take the time to do this. TRUTH people don't want to hear.

#7.1 MissT on 2019-01-28 14:10 (Reply)

You can't exercise your way out when parts are missing etc. That was a very unkind post.

#7.1.1 pbird on 2019-01-28 16:55 (Reply)

Re-read, I specifically said 'some pain.'

#7.1.1.1 MissT on 2019-01-28 18:44 (Reply)

It may not be obvious to everyone and there are those who intentionally obfuscate the issue but prescription drugs are not the problem.

It is difficult to get much satisfaction from prescription pain killers. Yeah they can do it, Oxy will suffice if you can't get the real thing. But oxy is not the real thing. You can take a small amount of cocaine up your nose or orally and you get high. You can't do that with oxycontin or Percocet. You won't get high. You need a number of the pills and you need to grind them up and still taking them orally just doesn't do much so some will resort to an intravenous option. The prescription drugs just aren't as good as the real thing.

So why do we think that they are the problem? Well they certainly are used to get high but mostly because they are available in someone's medicine cabinet not because they are the addicts first choice. When I was 16 a good friend, also 16, was a cigarette smoker. When he came to my house he would search the ashtrays for a cigarette butt to smoke. One day the ashtrays were all empty and he really needed a smoke so he asked for some tea which he rolled in a piece of newspaper and smoked. Now if you are a smoker this probably turns your stomach but that's the kind of thing addicts do when they are strung out. And when hard drug users are stung out they will resort to grinding up a half dozen oxy pills and injecting them. They won't enjoy it but it gets them by until the next time when they can steal enough money to buy the real thing.

So why then are prescription drugs being targeted??? Good question. Follow the money. They are setting up for law suits. Some ambulance chasing lawyers are going to become multi-millionaires. This could be almost as good as the tobacco settlement. Sure it will put drug manufacturers out of business and you may have drug shortages because of it. Some will move overseas where the government and the lawyers don't conspire against you. AND most importantly some sick and hurting people will not get pain killers. But so what when there are millions and millions at stake.

But what about over doses? Another good question. We have always had overdoes. But in the past half dozen years or so overdoses skyrocketed. This wasn't caused by prescription drugs. It is caused by Fentanyl. Fentanyl is so powerful that a pin head sized amount will kill you. And this is mixed in with street drugs because it is cheap and terribly powerful. But it is the Fentanyl that causes most of those 60,000 or so deaths by overdose. NOT prescription drug, not even cocaine and heroin. Fentanyl is so dangerous it can kill you by merely touching your bare skin.

OK, so why don't we ban Fentanyl and aim all our outrage at it? Another good question. There is no money in it. Almost all of it is manufactured in China and smuggled through Mexico and it is illegal and there just isn't anyone to sue. So they must focus on where the money is so the lawyers can have nice homes and BMWs.

#7.1.2 OneGuy on 2019-01-28 18:46 (Reply)

I have a drug-addict relative who is getting high 'legally' through prescription meds. This person has destroyed relationships over it. Says it's ok b/c it's not 'street addict' lifestyle. You can say what you want, but I go with actual experience...this person cannot function. 'Fall asleep' at every family gathering. Stumbles and mumbles. It's horrible.

Nobody wants their kids around this person. MANY like this person.

#7.1.2.1 MissT on 2019-01-29 16:20 (Reply)

I know a person who works in the lab in a major teaching hospital. One of her jobs is to monitor the actual drug use of patients using drug prescriptions.
Many of these people are using their legal drug IN ADDITION to illegal non prescribed drugs. I would not be surprised if the person you mention is doing likewise. The behavior described seems suggestive.

#7.1.2.1.1 pbird on 2019-01-29 17:45 (Reply)

If you know someone who uses cocaine ask them why. If you know them well enough that they will speak openly they will tell you that they have great sex and can go all night, etc. Also among drug users life while high is like a swingers club. This is the lure of drugs like cocaine and others. But if this friend has had to find prescription alternatives when they couldn't get their cocaine they will tell you that it doesn't give them the cocaine effect. It doesn't enhance sex or make them want to have sex with everyone. What the oxycodone does for them is merely take away the pain and anxiety of not getting their drug of choice. It is merely palliative and generally speaking not even that good. It isn't what they want, they would probably just as quickly take bath salts.

#7.1.2.1.2 OneGuy on 2019-01-30 11:35 (Reply)

When Is a Climate Model 'Useful'?

When it exposes the worthless climate charlatans.

#8 Rusty on 2019-01-28 10:44 (Reply)

QUOTE:

When Is a Climate Model 'Useful'?

Excellent question!

QUOTE:

A model, in other words, is a formal mechanism to state a hypothesis about some collection of observations. It's stated mathematically, or at least capable of being stated mathematically.

A model doesn't have to be mathematical. Natural selection and plate tectonics are models that don't necessary require a mathematical basis. They still tell us something about the underlying phenomena.

QUOTE:

It's actually even stronger than that: algorithmic complexity theory tells us that for chaotic systems, no computable model can be accurate unless it computes everything.

That is not correct. While the collisions of air molecules are chaotic, air pressure, the combined effect of all those collisions, is not. We do not have to "compute everything", and we can rely on air pressure to fill lungs or combustion engines, or distribute the faint whiff of perfume across the room at a dinner party.

QUOTE:

In science, at least, a model is useful to the extent that it is predictive.

That is correct. The model should be able to make observational predictions.

QUOTE:

Now, climate modeling is hard. I mean really hard. The sort of hard that consumes days of computation on the biggest supercomputers around.

Quite so! However, global warming is a much more tractable problem than climate change. The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively (short of a cometary impact), so if it absorbs more energy than it emits, the overall energy of the system will increase. On the other hand, climate change involves the chaotic movement of energy within the climate system, with the oceans playing an oversized role.

QUOTE:

A number of them, variations of the same basic hypotheses, all predict certain behavior of the climate that's usually condensed down to the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) and climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO2. Climate sensitivity is basically an estimate of how much GAST will increase for a certain amount of increase in the concentration of CO2.

We have empirical measures of GAST and ECS. Climate models do more than simply estimate GAST; they also try to determine how regional climates will change as GAST increases.

QUOTE:

All of the standard models make similar predictions, and they all have similar problems, which come down to this: they don't predict the actual observed changes in actual temperature.

Actually, model projections are close to observed temperatures.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 10:56 (Reply)

Actually, the models exaggerate warming up to 45%.

Lewis and Curry 2018

#8.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 11:18 (Reply)

Rusty: Actually, the models exaggerate warming up to 45%.

Lewis and Curry actually find a equilibrium climate sensitivity within IPCC's likely range of 1½-4½°C per doubling of CO2, though at the low end of that range. It's only a single study, so you have to cherry pick to accept this result while ignoring a multitude of others.

Of course, this single study may be correct. However, the methodology is such that it can be shown that internal climate variability can significantly impact the results.

#8.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 11:43 (Reply)

QUOTE:

However, the methodology is such that it can be shown that internal climate variability can significantly impact the results.

Well no shit kiddiez.

#8.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-28 11:57 (Reply)

"These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period."

I give you recent science and the most up to date models.

You give us dated science and old models.

#8.1.1.1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-28 11:58 (Reply)

Rusty: I give you recent science and the most up to date models.

It's a valid scientific paper, but it's a simplified model. (See When Is a Climate Model 'Useful'?) Notably, you ignored the problems we pointed to. If you introduce pattern variability into the model, it results in highly disparate results. That means the error bars are much higher than as published.

#8.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 12:06 (Reply)

Except that Lewis and Curry examined pattern variability and found the disparity to be minimal.

Keep googling, dipshit.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 12:22 (Reply)

Rusty: Except that Lewis and Curry examined pattern variability and found the disparity to be minimal.

See Dessler et al., The influence of internal variability on Earth’s energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 2018.

That is not to say theirs is not a valid method, but the underlying simplification may result in a too low value, as well as leaving the problem of why other methods result in higher ECS estimates.

Notably, their estimate is still within IPCC's likely value for ECS.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 16:35 (Reply)

Lewis and Curry already showed their math with Dressler and found that the uncertainty was minimal, especially compared to other uncertainties.

But of course, you already knew that didn't you, dipshit.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 17:16 (Reply)

Rusty: Lewis and Curry already showed their math with Dressler and found that the uncertainty was minimal, especially compared to other uncertainties.

You might want to provide the citation.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 17:47 (Reply)

Rusty: Lewis and Curry already showed their math with Dressler and found that the uncertainty was minimal, especially compared to other uncertainties.

You also left the other criticisms unanswered, including that Lewis and Curry is within the IPCC's likely range, and why this particular study should be believed at the exclusion of all other methodologies.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 17:50 (Reply)

There are more than 200 published papers about the warming pause and attempts to explain why the models did not catch it.

You should instead be asking yourself why you cherry-picked a particular graph to support your own spurious claim.

As for the IPCC, they've been discredited since 2007 when they were infiltrated by activists from WWF. Furthermore, 19 out of 20 citations come from the very people who compile the report - incestuous to an obscene degree. The range you speak of has been lowered over time BECAUSE their models were so outrageously hyped and inaccurate, so no... I will let Lewis and Curry stand on their own merits.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Rusty on 2019-01-29 10:34 (Reply)

Rusty: There are more than 200 published papers about the warming pause and attempts to explain why the models did not catch it.

Warming never actually paused, but did slow somewhat. Since then, warming has returned to trend.

Rusty: You should instead be asking yourself why you cherry-picked a particular graph to support your own spurious claim.

The graph accurately represents CMIP3 model projections and observational data. Here's CMIP5 model projections and observational data. Notice that observed temperatures were at the low end of the projections (the "hiatus"), but have since returned to the mean trend in the last few years.

Rusty: The range you speak of has been lowered over time BECAUSE their models were so outrageously hyped and inaccurate

The range has been widened ½°C, not lowered. Lewis and Curry are within IPCC's likely range.

Rusty: I will let Lewis and Curry stand on their own merits.

It does have merit, but you left unanswered why this particular study should be believed at the exclusion of all other methodologies. Are you cherry-picking?

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-29 14:09 (Reply)

You are incorrect. You're handwaving, Gasbot. We notice you never address the gaping wound in your babbling.

Your entire argument - if it even rises to one - hinges on cherry-picked data. All of it. Every time. As any garden slug knows, 1980-2018 doesn't stand a gasp of a chance at overturning scores and scores of long term temperature data.

Kindly recalibrate your babbler.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-29 15:31 (Reply)

Warming never actually paused

Depends on which dataset you use, doesn't it. Funny, then, that hundreds of scientists were trying to explain something that didn't happen.

Lewis and Curry are within IPCC's likely range.

Which means little. Nobody is sure if IPCC's numbers for forcing are wrong or if their numbers for sensitivity are wrong. Probably both, especially given that the IPCC has problems with ethical scientific practices. Either way, observation tends to be at the very low limit of IPCC's scare numbers. There is truly very little to worry about. There is very little warming happening, and what warming has occurred is a blessing for mankind.

It does have merit, but you left unanswered why this particular study should be believed

Because it more accurately reflects reality? Duh.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-29 15:50 (Reply)

Rusty: Depends on which dataset you use, doesn't it.

1998-2013, °C/decade
HadCRUT4: +0.052
GISTEMP: +0.094
UAHv5.6: +0.055
RSSv4.0: +0.049

This is below the expected trend, but the last few record-setting years have caught up with the trend, as would be consistent with internal variability; and, if you account for internal variability, then the warming did not abate. See Rahmstorf & Foster, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.

Rusty: Nobody is sure if IPCC's numbers for forcing are wrong or if their numbers for sensitivity are wrong.

Well, according to Lewis & Curry, ECS is at the low end of the IPCC's estimate.

Rusty: Because it more accurately reflects reality

We have pointed to the problems with Lewis & Curry. Other methodologies give different results. These other studies are also studies of "reality". You are assuming your conclusion, suggesting that you are, indeed, cherry-picking.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-29 17:08 (Reply)

Aw, you poor stupid shit.

Did you really think I meant "which REVISED dataset"?

No, I meant the datasets that climatologists were using BEFORE they revised the data to erase the pause. Like RSS 3 which showed a slight cooling trend during the pause.

Fortunately for them there is no shortage of mendacious shit-for-brains cretins like yourself who will spread the disinformation on their behalf.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-29 17:51 (Reply)

Cherrypicking

A 0.09375 degree average rise over a whopping 15 year period assuming the data is both accurate and representative. Meaning, best possible case shows a less than a tenth of a degree rise in fifteen years.

6/10 of a degree rise in a century, assuming it extrapolates perfectly seven times in a row. And as you say, assuming it's not corrupted.

I see a couple .6 degree moves before 1500AD, no sevenfold predictions required: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/AGW/Loehle/Fig2color.gif

Gonna have to start calling the damn thing MendaciousIronyBot.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-29 18:11 (Reply)

And everybody knows GISS is tweaked hotter since it was run by a climate activist.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-29 23:19 (Reply)

Mao et al seem to throw a wrench into things: http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/21/new-paper-modern-warming-was-driven-by-primarily-natural-factors-global-cooling-has-now-begun/.

And http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Holocene-Cooling-Global-Temps-1-to-1995-AD-Non-Tree-Ring-Proxies-Loehle-2007.jpg

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-30 07:29 (Reply)

Rusty: Did you really think I meant "which REVISED dataset"?

It's largely immaterial because the last few years have returned to trend. Oh, and don't forget ocean heat content.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 09:45 (Reply)

Oh man, what a poor deluded douche. You will literally believe anything they tell you.

I guess it wasn't enough when they thwarted FOIA requests to see their raw data. It wasn't enough when they finally admitted they threw away the raw data in a dumpster. It wasn't enough when they admitted that they falsified data about weather stations. It wasn't enough when it was revealed that they had put in place systems to keep the public in the dark about the facts. It wasn't enough when they allowed scientific reports to be written by non-scientist activists. It wasn't enough when an independent audit found the temperature record to be fatally flawed.

It can never be enough for you. You see these things with your eyes but it never makes it's way to your brain. Such is the progressive mind: black is white, morbidly obese is beautiful, male is female, words are violence, and cold is hot.

Enjoy the decline, dumbass. I know I will!

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 10:46 (Reply)

OHC expressed in zettajoules instead of degrees C.... uh huh!

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-30 11:01 (Reply)

Rusty: I guess it wasn't enough when they thwarted FOIA requests to see their raw data. It wasn't enough when they finally admitted they threw away the raw data in a dumpster.

That is not correct. The actual raw data is archived by hundreds of institutions in different countries around the world. The original researchers studying the question of global warming had contacted these various institutions and combined the data into a single data-set. They wanted to protect their priority, and didn't want to share this combined data-set, and thought other researchers could contact the institutions themselves. Furthermore, some of the data was proprietary and they didn't have permission to share the data, even if they wanted to.

In any case, nowadays the raw data is easily available to all researchers. Indeed, a team was recently assembled to independently assess the raw data using more advanced statistical analysis, and they found the same trend as other researchers. Furthermore, independent data-sets, such as from satellite radiative observations, support the warming trend.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 11:32 (Reply)

Actually, they admitted that they threw out the raw data.

It's not even in question.

You are retarded.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 12:28 (Reply)

Rusty: Actually, they admitted that they threw out the raw data.

The raw data is easily available, so it has clearly not been "thrown out".

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 12:35 (Reply)

No. No it isn't, by their own admission.

You are retarded.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 13:13 (Reply)

Rusty: No it isn't, by their own admission.

We know this is difficult for you, but try to actually respond to the point raised. Your claim doesn't make sense. Do you think the climate researchers destroyed records at thousands of facilities in dozens of countries around the world? Do you think someone running a weather station in Shanghai or Warsaw or Nairobi would just let someone come in and destroy their historical records?

As already pointed out, the raw data is easily available, so it hasn't been "thrown out".

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 13:20 (Reply)

They don't even correlate their data by country, retard. Again, by their own admission.

In any event, is this how you think science is done?

"You want to replicate my study? Shove your FOIA request up your ass I don't have to give you my data. I threw it away anyway. Go call the Nairobi weather station, bitch."

You are retarded.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 13:34 (Reply)

Address the real point, putz, and enough the adolescent condescension. Your tribe readily accepts corruption. How's that comport with the integrity of science, noisebox?

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-30 14:40 (Reply)

Rusty: No.

Here ya go!
NOAA NCEI: Data Access

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 13:32 (Reply)

Rusty: No.

Here's a couple of other sources for the raw surface data.
Berkeley Earth

MET: HadCRUT

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 13:35 (Reply)

Rusty: They don't even correlate their data by country

Have no idea what you are trying to say.

Rusty: is this how you think science is done?

Science is always constrained by observations, so yes, the observations do matter. The observations of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans show a warming trend over the last several decades. You and everyone else has access to the raw data, but we can't make you look.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 13:38 (Reply)

It's cute that you link to NCDC/NOAA as if they provide raw data.

Unfortunately for you, some smart scientists actually saved the raw data BEFORE NOAA began deleting, homogenizing and otherwise altering the record. Some were simply lopped off and discarded before 1900. Some were inexplicably revised despite no new data for the time period.

It's not hard to find the A/B comparisons between the raw data and what is now available.

To believe your own bullshit you must be retarded.

You are retarded.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 13:46 (Reply)

And Jesus, you linked us to HadCRUT?

They were just independently audited and found to be "not fit for global studies".

Why, one would have to be retarded to rely on this as a basis for government policy!

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 14:42 (Reply)

Not only does the clattering pan of paperclips decide to vigorously and visibly ignore your point, Rusty, it also ignores the fact it's purported arguments appear to all run on input filtered for confirmation with its bias. On narrative.

Apparently it's not even capable of grasping why where AGW is concerned, any reasonable mind would have warning lights flashing all over the helm. Why most of the civilized world has rejected it. What to do with the fact the US pollutes almost not at all by comparison to the Asian continent. Or what to do about any of it if it were real.

I'll give Gasbot points for originality, however. As in, never seen anything like it. Hard to say what crosses the finish line first, the bewildering want of simple argumentative integrity, the stupendously incurious void of basic human reason, or the incurable arrogance. Must be a riot at dinner parties, rocked back on its server frame, twirling its mouse cable, opining in that familiar blitzkrieg of dot matrix babbling about whatever Wikipedia threw in the trash last night, and looking sidelong through that tiny monitor at whoever dares challenge it with a take on honest reality.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-30 14:58 (Reply)

Indeed, the retarded NPC becomes alarmed at the thought that we might be delaying the next ice age.

The horror!

More evidence that they simply hate humanity and would like to see us all destroyed.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 15:17 (Reply)

By the way, Meh, how did you get the NPC to ignore you?

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 15:20 (Reply)

Rusty: By the way, Meh, how did you get {Zachriel} to ignore you?

Meh is an admitted troll.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 15:34 (Reply)

So am I, retard.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 15:38 (Reply)

Rusty: So am I

plonk

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 15:45 (Reply)

If only I knew it was that easy...

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 15:51 (Reply)

Welcome to the club!
Now you can point out all of the kiddiez misleading staements, half-truths and outright lies without having to deal with their snarky little comebacks.
They don't like to have honest discussions with superior intellects.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-30 17:20 (Reply)

Yes, I now understand why he outright asked me if I was a troll back on some previous thread where he was getting exposed pretty badly. Looking for way to end the conversation quickly while claiming some kind of moral superiority.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-31 10:21 (Reply)

That's a bald-faced lie, Gasbot.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-30 15:54 (Reply)

Rusty: It's cute that you link to NCDC/NOAA as if they provide raw data.

They do provide the raw data. However, you are more than free to collect the raw data directly from the hundreds of institutions that originally collected the temperature data.

Berkeley Earth: "Source data consists of the raw temperature reports that form the foundation of our averaging system."

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 14:44 (Reply)

There would be no discrepancy if the data were not tampered with. Yet over and over again what do we see? Datasets that do not match the historical data. And the revisions are almost exclusively to the benefit of the AGW agenda. Imagine that.

And BEST? Oh for God's sake - the dataset that was so transparent - they published it in a never-before-heard-of journal. And yes, their data is chopped. It is not raw.

You really must be retarded if you think a normal person would fall for this crap.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.2.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 15:12 (Reply)

Rusty: There would be no discrepancy if the data were not tampered with.

That's funny. You keep mixing up raw data with adjusted data. You had claimed the raw data was "thrown out", but that's simply false. You then cite John McLean, whose report primarily concerns problems with the raw data—something everyone already knows about—which is why adjustments are made to the raw data through a process of quality control. These adjustments are open for inspection, and there are a variety of methodologies. Berkeley Earth didn't use the typical methods, but implemented a new statistical analysis of the raw data, and yet they found the same warming trend. By the way, McLean didn't even provide a calculation of the error bars due to the errors he claimed to have found, but a look at his paper suggests it will have negligible impact on the overall trend.

"The Met Office said many of the problems identified are well known to anyone who has worked with climate data and are dealt with extensively in the literature including in the papers describing the construction of the data sets... He said the small number of specific errors highlighted represent a tiny fraction of the data and as such were likely to have a negligible impact on the overall results."

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-30 15:30 (Reply)

Umm, retard, that was the whole point - that they didn't catch the faults but incorporated them into their dataset. That's not how you do science.

Here's how you do science:

Hypothesis: Zachriel is a retard.
Observation: He says things only a retard would say.
Method: When say something normal, Zachriel will respond with something retarded.
Results: Zachriel speaks like he is retarded and believes things only a retard would believe. Furthermore, he thinks everyone around him is retarded although it is painfully obvious to everyone observing that zachriel is probly double digit IQ but cognitively functional in an Asperger kind of way.

Conclusion: You are retarded.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.4.1.2.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-30 15:47 (Reply)

That is incorrect. Go work on the stuff directly above you denial, Gasbot: http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/21/new-paper-modern-warming-was-driven-by-primarily-natural-factors-global-cooling-has-now-begun/.

And http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Holocene-Cooling-Global-Temps-1-to-1995-AD-Non-Tree-Ring-Proxies-Loehle-2007.jpg

Us human people persons call this logic. Since AGW seems to depend on fraud for the bulk of its momentum, and since the so-called science has never once added up, the rest of us who are not robotic babblers find a regression to the mean more rational.

As I've told your stupid flickering monochromatic green eyeball before, I don't have a preference one way or another - human influence on Earth will eventually kill all sorts of things, man included. I just expect clownshows such as yourself(s) to pose a rational argument instead of the handwaving heap stack overflow of autistic chattering you're known for.

#8.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2 Meh on 2019-01-30 12:35 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively (short of a cometary impact),

Back to that inaccurate statement are we kiddiez?
Y'all have been proven wrong before about this statement so why must you repeat it?

#8.1.2 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-28 12:15 (Reply)

"
A model doesn't have to be mathematical. Natural selection and plate tectonics are models that don't necessary require a mathematical basis. They still tell us something about the underlying phenomena. "

Actually they DO. Mathematical studies of population dynamics is critical to understanding evolution, including what can and cannot happen.

Tectonics modelling has been going on for years, with very strong mathematical basis, but even more importantly with multiple data sets. Climate modelling has only a single data set, our past century or so. Sometimes you need to build a model on a single data set, but it's certain to be significantly wrong in key areas.

#8.1.3 jay (Link) on 2019-01-28 12:19 (Reply)

jay: Actually they DO. Mathematical studies of population dynamics is critical to understanding evolution, including what can and cannot happen.

Mathematical modeling of populations came long after Darwin proposed natural selection as a viable model of adaptation. The claim would require saying that Darwin's natural selection was not even a model.

#8.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 13:16 (Reply)

Wrong on all of the above, Gasbot, but I reckon by now you know that.

Quote: A model, in other words, is a formal mechanism to state a hypothesis about some collection of observations. It's stated mathematically, or at least capable of being stated mathematically.

Gasbot: A model doesn't have to be mathematical. Natural selection and plate tectonics are models that don't necessary require a mathematical basis. They still tell us something about the underlying phenomena.

No they most certainly do not. They tell us something about underlying phenomena if the model that predicted them is correct. Lie #1, Gasbot. A small one but with enormous repercussions, which you then naturally exploit.

Quote: It's actually even stronger than that: algorithmic complexity theory tells us that for chaotic systems, no computable model can be accurate unless it computes everything.

Gasbot: That is not correct. While the collisions of air molecules are chaotic, air pressure, the combined effect of all those collisions, is not. We do not have to "compute everything", and we can rely on air pressure to fill lungs or combustion engines, or distribute the faint whiff of perfume across the room at a dinner party.

Lie #2, Gasbot. The claim, in addition to being conditioned by the requirement that the model actually depict reality, is that accuracy requires a complete mastery of the data. Since, in your short-sheeted example, knowing what a molecule does in China because of what another did in Minnesota does indeed require all that knowledge. Observing air pressure is not how to predict molecular movement in China, naturally.

What do we need to predict climate? We don't need molecular level accuracy but we need sufficient accuracy, an accuracy, per your first lie, we do not see in the models unless we parse the data for confirmation.

Quote: In science, at least, a model is useful to the extent that it is predictive.

Gasbot: That is correct. The model should be able to make observational predictions.

Exactly. And AGW models do not make predictions of sufficient resolution to overlay the historical climatic record, nor do they predict contemporary trends. The only way your gross generalizations bear out is if, as predicted, you parse the material for confirming accident, bias, or short term trend.

Quote: Now, climate modeling is hard. I mean really hard. The sort of hard that consumes days of computation on the biggest supercomputers around.

Gasbot: Quite so! However, global warming is a much more tractable problem than climate change.

Bullshit. And a semantic ruse.

Gasbot: The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively (short of a cometary impact), so if it absorbs more energy than it emits, the overall energy of the system will increase.

You cannot say with certainty that that theoretical delta is not equilibrium. So far you've made nothing but assumptions or as we like to call them, handwaving.

Gasbot: On the other hand, climate change involves the chaotic movement of energy within the climate system, with the oceans playing an oversized role.

Accidentally right, because CO2 lags temperature and ice sequesters CO2, confirming the natural negative feedback - heat drives CO2 levels and not the other way around.

Quote: A number of them, variations of the same basic hypotheses, all predict certain behavior of the climate that's usually condensed down to the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) and climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO2. Climate sensitivity is basically an estimate of how much GAST will increase for a certain amount of increase in the concentration of CO2.

Gasbot: We have empirical measures of GAST and ECS. Climate models do more than simply estimate GAST; they also try to determine how regional climates will change as GAST increases.

The operative word being try.

Quote: All of the standard models make similar predictions, and they all have similar problems, which come down to this: they don't predict the actual observed changes in actual temperature.

Gasbot: Actually, model projections are close to observed temperatures.

The heck they do, Gasbot; you think we're stupid that we don't know the data? And the historical record actually refutes them - their signal is completely overwhelmed in change orders of magnitude greater than the entire modern epoch.

You've actually violated a half dozen proclamations of the 20th century's greatest scientific minds: You endlessly put a whim before of any evidence of a phenomenon. Science rejects that fallacy with a vengeance.

#8.1.4 Meh on 2019-01-28 14:36 (Reply)

Ouch! That should leave a mark. No wonder the kiddiez refuse to debate you.

#8.1.4.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-28 14:58 (Reply)

This has to be some kind of intellectual masochism on Z's part.

He should just end every comment with "Ooh baby, spank me out of my cognitive bias! I've been very intellectually dishonest! I need to be reproved HARD!"

#8.1.4.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 17:25 (Reply)

... and OFTEN!"

#8.1.4.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-28 18:33 (Reply)

The notion that in a hyper-sophisticated Earth-sized system there's enough data about a minuscule natural trace gas to confirm Gasbot's little models is fantastically absurd. In fact, the models are so crude that they are adjusted by the measured data.

Which is how you get modeling at that level. Crude doesn't mean unsophisticated, it just means not relatively competent. That science has no alternative but to define the state of its art by practical terms and inputs, the way you would normally get a model of a simple system to work when you didn't have all the terms.

They don't have all the terms, obviously. They don't even have consensus on the major drivers (and they've got as much divergence as they have convergence, especially in the solar system and the cosmos Earth's circuit exists in) and they certainly don't have the virtually molecular-level detail they'd need from the data of thousands and thousands of phenomena, each to a resolution way past the decimal.

I happen to work with predictive models. A specific input is analyzed in only three major domains for about fifteen output types. It all computes nicely (and actually exceeds the measurable resolution of the real system it predicts because the numbers are so simple and pure and unconcerned by - you guessed it - all possible real conditions) but all this is tied together with that math, predictably, and that math is known, right to the nth usable decimal. After 30 years I have a pretty good sense how X afflicts Y and the programming only has to run a wad of spreadsheet formulas to solve for those domains and outputs.

Gasbot's systems don't have that math, at least not in the required granularity. Gasbot's systems don't even know what hunks of that math are or exactly where to find them - consider that one unknown or undeveloped overhead variable pitches the whole thing in the can, as would another variable under the Earth's crust.

That's why they use climatic "output" to adjust the modeling: they're still finding the variables. That math is missing. And that's fine.

But yet the babbling about first principles and the last ten years on the thermometer and Acme, Faceplant, and Cheese Grater ET AL goes on and on like nobody knows anything.

We're all your morons, Gasbot. Susceptible to the definitive, high level proclamations of your solitary transistor.

#8.1.4.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-28 18:52 (Reply)

Re: Bill Maher

I appreciate Maher for being one of the last lefties who seem to genuinely support really free speech. In his comments about a high school kid were very valuable because now we know what a low rent coward he is.

#9 mudbug on 2019-01-28 10:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Left Are Annoying Puritans

How did Arizona elect this person?

Tee hee! Now that's a funny juxtaposition! The "Left" are annoying LGBTQ Puritans who wear stripper clothes to work.

#10 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 11:02 (Reply)

This is one of those rare moments when I agree with the Z. Please you crazies on the left keep doing you. Wear those pussy hats and mini skirts while telling us you should be considered normal. Be openly anti-Semitic (it is so much more refreshing than your old fashioned in the closet style of anti-Semitism. Keep cheering the killing of babies. Keep giving illegals free health care, the vote and college aid. Keep joining communist organizations and taking their money. Keep attacking school children on the streets and social media. There are still a lot of people who haven't yet woke to your evil ways. So keep doing you.

#10.1 Anon on 2019-01-28 11:21 (Reply)

Anon: Please you crazies on the left keep doing you.

Because of the U.S. political system, the two main parties will necessarily be a coalition of groups—even with the partisan migration over the last generation or so. The majority party will tend to be less cohesive, as it has to hold onto the center. The minority party will tend to be more consolidated, and can often be highly ideological as it doesn't actually have to implement its policies. The U.S. currently has divided government.

The key is whether the party can keep its ideological extremes in check. The Democratic Party tended to have a lot of radical members in the 1970s. Like the French revolutionaries, some would have renamed the months of the calendar, and had everyone working on Maggie's Farm. Today, no one in the Republican Party has been able to stand athwart the ideological currents, though Pelosi may have finally checked Trumpism.

No one should ever hope for the crazies to take over a party, because the crazies can sometimes win control of the political process.

#10.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 12:18 (Reply)

OMG Twice in one day I find myself agreeing with the Z.

"Today, no one in the Republican Party has been able to stand athwart the ideological currents"

This is true. 100% of our problems have come from an increasingly anti-American pro-communist Democrat party. But as the Z points out our pro-American constitution party can't get their act together. With crazy rino John McCain gone Romney gets elected and is now trying to take his place simply because he is still butt hurt about losing to Trump (well and also because he was never a conservative). Marco Rubio is a sometimes conservative but a full time "Cuban" who has never really considered himself to be American and only exists to open the borders. I could go on but about half of the Republicans in congress could switch parties and never have to change their mind. THAT is why we must and will undergo a terrible and violent revolution. The communist/Democrats know this and they desperately want to revoke the 2nd amendment. You simply cannot have 60 million or so Kulaks armed while also trying to take everything they own.

#10.1.1.1 Anon on 2019-01-28 12:47 (Reply)

I see your problem, Googlebot. You have to be more than a can of machinery to understand philosophy - you have to comprehend like a human rather than running an autistic babbler from dusk to dawn.

You have to grasp the abstract. The bigger picture. Mind. And especially integrity.

Progressivism is an observable, historical, neo-puritanical, religious morality play that projects its oddball ethics onto the world with all the intolerance and ruthlessness of its many bloody totalitarians. This is why it lusts after power, hates normalcy and regular people, steamrolls what we allow it to, and lies as a matter of course.

It is a cancerous activism in a world that has always, without exception, run better with personal spiritual ascendency, functional self-sufficiency, and structurally, the classically liberal ethics.

It's not hard to see which side one falls on. And who reacts like a demented toaster when faced with things that reward thought and intent more than they ever could the folder tree in your dingy personal server farm.

#10.2 Meh on 2019-01-28 14:51 (Reply)

The little Schiff in congress has exposed the Democrat plan. They intend to go after Trump's friends and family using the courts for a political vendetta. We saw this most recently with Roger Stone. I suspect that Mueller had a list of charges for Stone but they were so weak and transparent he probably wouldn't use them. But Stone had the balls to go on TV and tell the truth about Mueller's part in this ongoing misuse of the courts to get Trump. So Mueller pounced and did it style we haven't seen since Stalin. This will continue and even accelerate. There is open "lawfare" by the left.

What should Trump do? This is a war of attrition and everyday Trumps enemies are destroying him. It may well be too late to save himself. Seriously there is so much already in effect and unstoppable and so much more being planned right now that Trump may be in jail by 2020. So my advice is:

Appoint half a dozen special prosecutors each with a mission to dig out and punish the crimes of Obama and his various cabinet members especially the DOJ and the FBI. AND to look into the post election effort by the Dems to destroy the duly elected president of the U.S. If he does not do this soon he will even lose that option. Do it, no warnings, no threats, do it. If you don't you will see your son, your daughter, your son in law and yourself in jail after 2020. They are coming for you.

Oh yeah, investigate the FISA court and in the interim shut it down. God knows what other secret attacks have been hatched in this star chamber.

#11 GoneWithTheWind on 2019-01-28 11:03 (Reply)

If the Democrats insist on going rabid and trying to destroy Trump then he still can play the hole card that came with the position of President...Marshall Law.

#11.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-28 11:42 (Reply)

Please. Martial. As in milirary.

#11.1.1 pbird on 2019-01-28 17:03 (Reply)

Yes, haha. I hit the wrong key. Military.

#11.1.1.1 pbird on 2019-01-28 17:05 (Reply)

We hurry too much.

#11.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-28 22:41 (Reply)

Wow. A sleeveless, form-fitting minidress paired with (unmatching) thigh high boots worn on the floor of the US Senate. This is past 'bless her heart' territory and far into 'what was she thinking??' It' stunningly inappropriate. Maybe Dr. Joy Bliss can weigh in on the situation regarding Kristen Sinema's self-presentation?

I would comment on Senator Sinema's choice of outfits, but I don't feel I'm professionally qualified.

#12 JM01 on 2019-01-28 12:22 (Reply)

It was not an accident or simply a bad choice that morning. She intended to stick her finger in the eye of half the country. And she is a serial finger sticker, just look at her past. During the election the voters were warned about here radical and stupid agenda but they ignored that because she was offering free stuff. So be it. Maybe this is what we all deserve. We, all of us. allowed the monetization of elections and our government and knew or should have known that it would lead us down that terrible socialist road. We lost the "greatest generation" and replaced it with the laziest generation. For this failure you must pay. Make no mistake they will take what is yours to give it to the people who vote for them. You can either accept that as it gets worse and worse or you can fight. I am 100% sure that we are no longer willing to fight and we will accept this degradation of our rights until they grind us down enough that we will no longer be able to fight. I honestly think we are looking at the beginning of the end for America.

#12.1 Anon on 2019-01-28 12:55 (Reply)

Ref "puritans"

What these (allegedly scientific) whiners about 'objectification' don't seem to get, is that we are mammals and primates, and that defines our core nature. When a female is ready to mate, male mammals are directly triggered by her sexual cues. It can be pheremones, or behavior or display... but it's direct and visceral. Males who do not respond enthusiastically are quickly eliminated from the gene pool. This direct response is what is commondly called 'objectification' in humans. It's a basic male trait (gay men objectify men in exactly the same way). While it's no justification for crude or coercive behavior, it is a fundamental aspect of biology.

By contrast, female mammals are less responsive to external cues and normallyy are triggered by biological processes within their bodies (human females extend their sexual response times, and there are strong evolutionary resons for that, but the process is essentially the same).

So any male who insists he does not objectify is lying, possibly even to himself.

#13 jay (Link) on 2019-01-28 12:22 (Reply)

Europe 'coming apart before our eyes', say 30 top intellectuals.
"Intellectuals" 'KNOW'. Suuuuuuuuuuure they do.

Highbrows Vs. Deplorables: As above.

Amnesty Int’l Rejects Motion to Combat Record-High Anti-Semitism in UK
Resolution defeated in tight vote at annual conference; criticisms mount: Is anyone surprised?

#14 Sam L. on 2019-01-28 13:03 (Reply)

JUDICIAL WATCH PRESIDENT: “President Trump Is Right…I estimate about 900,000 aliens illegally voted in the midterms”

https://100percentfedup.com/judicial-watch-president-president-trump-is-right-i-estimate-about-900000-aliens-illegally-voted-in-the-midterms/

#15 feeblemind on 2019-01-28 14:09 (Reply)

Whether a model is highly mathematical or not, it's useful to the extent that it uses a theory of causation to make predictions that can then be verified. If it can't make predictions that are subject to verification, it's useless. If the predictions it makes are not borne out by the facts, the model's usefulness lies solely in eliminating a particular theory of causation. So back to the drawing board to create a better model.

#16 Texan99 on 2019-01-28 21:42 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, January 28. 2019