Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1571

by hsthompson69 (#46793151) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

The overreach is unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats deciding to drive him out of business with unfavorable, non-negotiable terms in order to "save" a desert tortoise that they're more than willing to kill when building solar plants.

The feds changed the rules underneath him, and all the other ranchers, and he fought back through civil disobedience. The feds should be ashamed of themselves.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 2) 1571

by hsthompson69 (#46775237) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Lack of regulation? Are you kidding me? The power of regulators in the banking, campaign finance, environment, food and medicine industries are *legendary*. You may argue that the regulators are corrupt, and I'll agree, but to assert that there is some *lack* of regulatory power is ludicrous.

You make my point when you assert that "this guy wasn't donating to the right politicians". The unchecked bureaucracy of the BLM was able to *legally* run roughshod over the interests of the ranching community in Nevada, and this poor man ended up being the last man standing. If there was ever a case of "legal plunder", this is it.

Comment: Re:Mass Killings = 0% of those killed each year. (Score 1) 1571

by hsthompson69 (#46773393) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Exactly. Just like zero lead in your peanuts = more lead in your pistachios.

More like zero lead in your lawful peanuts = more lead in your unlawful peanuts.

As it stands, guns in civilian hands can stop guns in criminal hands, which makes it different than lead in peanuts since zero lead in your lawful peanuts can't stop the lead in your unlawful peanuts.

Give me an analogy that fits with self defense, and maybe we'll get somewhere :)

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1571

by hsthompson69 (#46773175) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

It's about a government overreach based on special interests and ideology, forcing unfavorable contract terms on a private citizen, then demanding, under color of law, that they submit with no recourse. It's about unaccountable bureaucrats who define, own, and game the system, and the lack of checks and balances against it.

The thief here is the BLM, and they're hiding behind unaccountable regulatory powers.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 2) 1571

by hsthompson69 (#46773087) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Technological advancement in armaments also makes bullets more likely to expand in their target, and reduce over penetration, a key factor in self defense to avoid unintentional casualties.

Having bullets reach the *right* people (bad guys) more quickly is a *good* thing, and technological advancements in ammunition, sights, and firearms quality all help with that.

You could make the argument that advancement in technology for freedom of speech allows for more hate speech and bullying to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society worse.

Comment: Molon labe (Score 1) 1571

by hsthompson69 (#46773023) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

If the government is willing to disarm itself first, I might be willing to consider the proposition, but when the elite bureaucrats can have armed bodyguards, personal ccw and our police forces are armed to the teeth for no-knock paramilitary raids on civilians, forgive me if I'm hesitant to give up my right to self defense.

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by hsthompson69 (#46696343) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

So, you've been called out on a premiere study by NOAA 2008 that failed predictions, you've been unable to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and your response is that the data is wrong or irrelevant?

My problem, dear boy, is that your response to *any* actual refutation of prediction by observation is simply the blanket statement that "the data is wrong or irrelevant", without any sort of rationale as to *why* we should believe it to be so.

Again, this is the typical astrologist act - any failed prediction is irrelevant, but the mass of "consistent with" predictions is crowed about. "Heads I win, tails you lose" is a clever way to frame an argument, but it's not science. :)

Do you *deny* that there has been statistically insignificant warming for periods of at least 15 years if not more for multiple land/ocean datasets?

Do you *deny* that NOAA 2008 models excluded the possibility of such observations at the 95% confidence level?

Do you *deny* that you don't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, from any source?

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by hsthompson69 (#46696009) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

Your quote:

"But the quote is: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.""

Multiple temperature datasets, as provided to you, have examples of zero trends for intervals of 15yr or more...some over 20yr

The simulations were 95% sure that such a thing could not happen - leaving our confidence in these simulations as being accurate at 5%, or worse, depending on how much longer than 15 years you get.

You can deny the data all you want, but NOAA made a prediction, failed that prediction, and you are now throwing NOAA 2008 under the bus, playing the same game astrologists use of ignoring failed predictions.

You're now trying to support a hypothesis of AGW that apparently doesn't even require statistically significant warming for it to be true. Prima facie, that's an illogical assertion.

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by hsthompson69 (#46686083) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

No such assurance has been made. Except by you.

NOAA 2008 - not me :)

Look, you got caught drinking more than 5 glasses of wine an hour (more than 15 years of statistically insignificant warming during a period of increasing CO2), by *EVERY* temperature data set quoted. Multiple witnesses, and you're still hoping the public defender can get you off on a technicality :)

Are you really going to try to argue with the data?

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by hsthompson69 (#46685475) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

So now you're demanding that we use a different period for different data sets. It gets worse!

The falsification criteria simply demands that a 15+ year period of no statistically significant warming exists *anywhere* in the record during a period of ever increasing CO2.

It's like if I bet that you're an alcoholic if you drink more than 5 glasses of wine in an hour, but you say I'm cherry picking the time you're in the bar, and claim you spend most of your days sleeping and not drinking :)

You've been drinking, you've been caught, by every possible measure, and you *still* deny it :)

Look, you want to claim that NOAA 2008 is bogus, and not representative of the true hypothesis of AGW, fine - but realize that this kind of ad hoc special pleading, and dismissing of failed predictions is *exactly* the kind of thing astrologists do.

At the very least, given the evidence in all the temperature sets demonstrated, you have to admit that your mythical, as of yet unstated necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, cannot exclude arbitrarily long periods of no statistically significant warming with ever increasing CO2. And prima facie, the fact that you're now asserting that AGW can be true *without* statistically significant warming, makes your premise incredibly unlikely :)

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by hsthompson69 (#46679541) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

OK, so you really don't know what carbon neutral means.

"Carbon neutral" is a mythical term. You're assuming that you understand sources and sinks at a level of detail that isn't possible.

The fact of the matter is that butterflies, like humans, are CO2 *sources*. As such, all other things held the same, their contribution will cause some (possibly and probably insignificant) warming due to the spectral properties of CO2.

Oh, it's MSU.RSS now is it? Funny how every data series on that page shows warming from 1998 to the latest data, except MSU.RSS.

Look again. *Every* data set there contains at least one 15 year instance that has no statistically significant warming.

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Click on "trend+significance" and notice what greys out. *Every* data set there has example 15 year periods with no statistically significant warming during periods of ever increasing CO2 levels.

Q.E.D. :)

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by hsthompson69 (#46673927) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

You haven't thought it through. Where does the carbon in a butterfly come from? Nectar. From a plant. Where does a plant's carbon come from? CO2 in the atmosphere. It's carbon neutral.

You haven't thought it through - CO2 doesn't care *where* it comes from - it's spectral properties exist regardless if it came from a burning plant, outgassed from the ocean, or from the exhalation of respiration.

At the very least, the extraction of nectar, by butterflies, and turning it into CO2, delays sequestration of CO2 in plant matter - so while *everything* is "carbon neutral" at an arbitrary time scale, it is obviously a CO2 *source* for at least some period of time - upwards of many decades if you're to believe the warmist assertions of the cycle time for atmospheric CO2.

Says the man who can't even work out that a butterfly is carbon neutral.

Your definition of "carbon neutral" is cute, but unconvincing, and certainly doesn't put you off the hook for quoting a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW :)

Because there has been warming over the last 15 years. So it's still in the 95%, not outside it.

Look at the data - http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

By any number of temperature sets, there has been no *statistically significant warming* (which is what NOAA 2008 referenced) for periods up to 20+ years. You're *way* outside of the 95% :)

Comment: Re:AGW vs Vaccine (Score 1) 470

by hsthompson69 (#46673903) Attached to: It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom

Simply observing warming doesn't mean you've proven that your pet cause for the warming is *the* cause - certainly warming is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it isn't nearly *sufficient* to exclude all other possibilities of natural warming.

Furthermore, you've had ever increasing CO2 for the past 20 years, and by various temperature sets, up to 20 years or more of no statistically significant warming...would you consider that a falsification?

Comment: Re:AGW vs Vaccine (Score 1) 470

by hsthompson69 (#46672067) Attached to: It's Time To Bring Pseudoscience Into the Science Classroom

Consensus is not science.

Vaccination science includes the possibility of falsification. AGW does not. Therefore, vaccination science is true not because there is a consensus, but because there is a falsifiable hypothesis statement that has been ruthlessly attacked, even by its proponents, and it has survived.

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

Working...