Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Relationship of technology to this election? (Score 1) 323

My first degree included sociology and I studied quite a bit about polling. I even followed up with math before switching to computer science for my second degree. So I'm telling you [tbannist] to stop projecting your ignorance or bias.

So, are you a sock-puppet account for meta-monkey? Or are you just jumping on the "polling isn't accurate because I don't like the results" bandwagon?

Short summary: It is quite easy to deliver any poll results you are being paid for.

I would strongly suspect that vast majority of polls are paid for accurate results. In the case of political campaigns, for example, they may only release the results of favourable polls, but deliberately inaccurate polls seem like a waste of money. It far cheaper to simply choose the poll(s) that other people have paid for that most resemble the result you want and trumpet those. Also, few people are going to believe a poll that the campaign paid for that produces wildly different results from everyone other poll. Without a sound procedure and definite reasons for the discrepancies, it would be immediately be dismissed as paid-for-results and it would damage the credibility of the polling organization that produced the results.

The hardest thing is to produce an honest poll that gives you meaningful insight into any deep issue.

There's a qualitative different between biased results and deliberately dishonest results. Most polls have some degree of bias and we can compare polls to each other and to election results to see how accurate they and develop and estimate of how biased the poll is and in which direction. But meta-monkey made the claim that they don't even try to be accurate until the last week before the election and if you believe he is correct, then you're also an ignorant fool.

Comment Re:Relationship of technology to this election? (Score 2) 323

The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.

As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.

The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?

Comment Re:Ellen Pao (Score 1) 617

Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened."

There's nearly a dozen women who say differently.

He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence?

How about when he suggested that "second ammendment types" could kill Clinton to prevent her from passing any gun control laws? How about the way he's setting the stage for post-election violence by loudly declaring that his defeat won't be because he's losing the election and the popular vote, but because the election is rigged? Trying to de-legitimizing the results of an election is a pretty good way to incite (and legitimize) violence.

I don't find it ironic that, with the exception of the religious fundamentalists perhaps, conservatives are a lot more open minded and accepting that people have different philosophies than liberals.

I know a lot of liberals and conservatives, and I have not observed the same thing. Conservatives are, almost by definition, less accepting of people who are different. It's a pretty big part of what makes someone a conservative, the belief that people should be forced to conform to certain roles and norms for the ultimate benefit of society. On the other hand, liberals, tend to be less concerned about forcing people to fit in, and are more concerned about what people do (in a moral sense).

But the lesser of two evils is still evil (so keep making fun of third party votes while you vote "evil").

And, yes. How enlightened of you to vote for the lesser of 3 or 4 evils, when everyone else is voting for the lesser of 2 evils. You should always be voting for the lesser evil, no matter which party you choose. Of course, the reason Trump is doing so well in the polls is because he's convinced a sizeable demographic to deliberately vote for the greater evil.

For the vast majority of supporters, a vote for Trump is not a vote for sexism or racism

Of course, it isn't, but that's because they can't reconcile the idea that they're good people and still voting for an evil monster. So, clearly those claims are overblown and they're just voting for the smart, rich guy who will fix everything. And he clearly said all the sexual assault allegations were just the corrupt media, and so what if he, himself, has been recording on tape boasting about his criminal actions. The media will do anything to defeat poor little Donald, even play back his own words, for everyone to hear. Have they no shame?

Comment Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score 3, Informative) 617

Or you know, maybe because we heard Trump bragging about assaulting women, then denying it, pretending it was "locker room talk", and then we've seen almost a dozen women come forward and say he assaulted them. Then there's the recordings of him boasting about how he he would deliberately go backstage to peep at the Miss Teen Universe contestants, and the recordings of him (in his sixties) claiming he'd soon be dating 10 and 12 year old girls.

Clearly, it's all the crooked press. How dare they play unedited recordings of Trump talking.

Comment Re:and quick to engage in personal attack (Score 1) 523

His endorsement is still for "personal safety reasons" and that's sad. It's far more troubling than anything that Trump has said or that has been said about Trump. It's the true death of liberty. It's like living in a fascist or communist state.

It's not for "personal safety reasons" it's for "financial safety reasons" and it's exactly like living in a thriving free market state, because that's where he lives. Your claims to contrary seem to indicate a considerable level of delusion. You may want to talk to someone about that.

People tend to project and they see Trump as Hitler.

Trump's not Hitler, though he has advocated murdering the families of suspected terrorists, torturing suspected terrorists because "they deserve it anyways", and deporting 3.3 million Americans because they don't worship the correct religion. Since he wouldn't be able to deport that many people, he'd probably want to have them sent to special camps where they work to pay for the expense of the camps they have been exiled to, and it's anyone's guess what "final solution" President Trump would come up with for his unwanted guests. So, I'm saying that while Trump isn't Hitler, but he does kind of want to be like Hitler, just without the "bad press". It should also be noted that during this election campaign Trump has publicly praised Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Un for their power, ruthlessness and for killing their enemies in cold blood. Trumps respects the ability to off people who don't agree with you or would stand in the way of his unfettered abuse of power. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Having said that, we can be reasonably confident that no one else would let Trump do what he says he wants to do, but still what Trump has said he wants to do is actually pretty horrifying before we even start to consider that's he an old lecher who cheats on his wives, grabs women he doesn't know, and abused his position with beauty pageants so he could creep around backstage and watch the contestants while they were changing. And then there's the criminal investigations into his business dealings, the bribery of public officials, the fact that his Trump Foundation charity has actually spent money on Donald Trump himself (for example buying portraits of Trump to hang in Trump Hotels), and the probability that he's a serial tax evader and/or a compulsive liar about his net worth.

But that's all optics, right? Supporting him doesn't really mean you're supporting a foolish, ignorant, cheating, lying, scoundrel who routinely abuses his power to get whatever he wants, right?

Comment Re:Surprisingly XKCD is wrong ! (Score 1) 221

BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).

Unfortunately, you didn't give me any evidence to contradict my views, I'm just tried of correcting you. For example:

  1. The Canadian Geographic article says of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 3 are growing, 2 are stable and 6 are unknown. You seem to only see that 3 are growing while ignoring that 8 are in decline, and that seems to be simple confirmation bias on your part
  2. something which seems to be common thread running through all of your arguments. All evidence that you are wrong is ignored and any evidence that you might be correct is accepted without question or even examination.

  3. You showed one instance where the climate sensitivity estimate had it's lower range dropped. It was raised onc (4th report) e and lowered once (5th report), it was 1.5 to 4.5C in the first report and 1.5C to 4.5C in the fifth report, which is explicitly what I told you. Now, I don't know why you are arguing about this but like everything else you have written about climate change you are clearly, factually, and demonstrably wrong, but I'm sure you'll invent another excuse to justify your refusal to accept reality.
  4. The article you linked is a crock, it wasn't Iceland's chief meterologist who said it was being fiddled with, it was Christopher Booker, who's a columnist for the Telegraph and an anti-science crank, Here's a video explaining what the adjustments that Booker is complaining about are and why they are needed.

That's three major mistakes in one sentence, and it's one of your better sentences. A fact which should horrify anyone with half a brain. The simple fact is that everything you think you know is wrong but I am no longer willing to spend my time correcting you (and having the corrections ignored).

  1. What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".

No, what I am experiencing is a condescending jackass who thinks he's clever, but is actually particularly ignorant, dense and, I suspect, more than a little bit slow. I have become weary of your boorish behaviour and your plain fucked up insane bullshit. You are consistently and endlessly wrong, but I don't have the time to debunk 20 or 30 insane claims in every single one of your posts. You pile on the disinformation and insanity and it's just not worth my time to debate you any more.

The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.

You wouldn't recognize the Scientific Method if it bit you on the ass. You read scientific articles and then invent new results to fit your world view. You are the very model of a Lysenkoist because you are living in world of make-believe where you twist the facts to always support your view. Frankly, you have your head shoved so far up your own ass, I doubt you will ever be able to recognize the real world again and that is why I'm done with you.

Comment Re:Surprisingly XKCD is wrong ! (Score 1) 221

I'm sorry, but virtually everything you've write is factually incorrect and then dressed up in delusions of libertarian virtue. You are, frankly, all sorts of crazy, and I simply do not have the time to continue dealing with you. Good luck with your conspiracies theories and single observations that disprove entire fields of study!

Comment Re:Surprisingly XKCD is wrong ! (Score 1) 221

ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.

I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..

ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?

No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.

You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?

I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.

Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).

"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.

You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.

Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.

You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.

Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?

When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they are only using Global Warming as a cover for their Collectivist political ambitions you simply dismiss the evidence you don't like. That makes you fanatical because you will not objectively examine any counter-evidence to your current ideological position.

Unsourced quotes from random people aren't exactly what I would call scientific evidence. Maybe things operate different in your area of physics? Can I disprove string theory by point out that Lubo Motl is an asshole?

Like the Wordpress article ? Could you show me where in the Scientific Method 'peer review' is required ? it isn't. But you are so bad at science you don't know this.

Wait a minute, you claim to be a practising physicist and you don't understand what peer review is? Peer review isn't required in the scientific method, peer review is one of the means used to make sure you actually followed the scientific method and didn't make any large, stupid, errors before publishing your results. Peer review is for improving the quality of the published literature.

The ONLY thing that determines reality in the Scientific Method are the observations - and the observations show that the predictions of the IPCC (which they continually revise down since they systematically get it wrong) are on the very fringe of their uncertainly distribution.

I've already shown this statement to false, the most recent IPCC predictions for equilibrium climate sensitivity are the same as the first IPCC predictions.

That is, observed reality has somewhere near a 5% chance of occurring from random error based on your models. Anyone who understands the meaning of such uncertainty distributions understands that the IPCC's CAGW hypothesis is WRONG - and the damage you eco-loons are doing to human progress is thus wrong, and quite frankly, deeply immoral. You are the bag guys who are condemning billions of brown people to death - all so you can virtue signal your 'green' credentials to you peers. That is absolutely disgusting behavior.

I'm sorry, but now you're just becoming incoherent, are you drunk posting?

How about you do this to get a clue: 1) Take one dataset, such as the RSS 6 data used to generate this [] 2) Remove El Nino (since they are not man-made, unless somehow you think they are ?) 3) Plot against the IPCC prediction curve using their most-likely TCS. 4) What is the statistical significance of the observed value versus the ensemble of IPCC predictions ? 5) Repeat for UAH 6) Repeat for the weather ballon data 7) Repeat for well-sited surface stations, after removing those contaminated by UHI and all the estimate data (which is nearly 50% these days), then correct for the lapse rate (since we're talking about the LTT).

Ok, James S. Risbey seems to have done that.

In all cases the IPCC models *grossly* overestimate the warming because they don't model the complexities of water vapor correctly and water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas - and the principal determinant of the TCS. Hence, the alarmists predict way to much warming, at too great a rate. CAGW, which is the position of the IPCC (and yourself), is falsified.

Interestingly enough, he got the opposite result from what you claim.

You are aware that AGW/CAGW is not really about CO2, right? it is about **water vapor** - but 'clouds' don't sound scary enough for the taxpayer shakedown the unelected anti-democratic United Nations control freaks have planned.

You are aware that this water vapour thing is a red herring right? The atmosphere is saturated with water vapour it's the change in CO2 (and other green house gases) that drive climate change. Water vapour concentration is determined by temperature, so it's a feedback that amplifies other green house gases. If you produce 1 degree of warming from CO2 you get another degree of warming from water vapour according to NASA's AIRS.

ps. The Arctic summer ice level is increasing (in fact, this September was the fastest growth rate on record), the Antarctic ice is near record levels (despite the melting from new discovered under-sheet volcanoes) and the polar bear numbers are at record high levels and INCREASING. All the predictions of the eco-loons have not only not happened, but the OPPOSITE has happened. Yet you will continue to deny reality, because environmentalism is a pseudo-religious cult and not about applying the actual Scientific Method.

Here's a graph from the National Snow & Ice Data Center, 2016 is higher than 2012, but is well below the 1981-2010 average, in fact it's the 5th lowest on record, and Polar Bears International says polar bears numbers are not actually increasing. Once again, every fact you have cited appears to be wrong.

Comment Re:Surprisingly XKCD is wrong ! (Score 1) 221

Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).

The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years.

Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done.

Really? Didn't you just direct me the ignorant opinion of a series of elder crackpot scientists with little expertise in the field of climate change? Were you being unscientific then? The article I directed you on Skeptical Science isn't opinion, it's an explanatory article that links to the sources for they're providing you can, if you chose to, verify everything they've stated from the sources provided.

The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction.

The failure to detect the signal was most likely measurement error, according to this article co-authored by John Christy (who is definitely not a global warming proponent). There is also a stratospheric cooling trend that biases the results on the cold side because the microwave signal is travelling through a cooling band of atmosphere above the warming band and the balloon data actually shows warming.

Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that.

According to this article on the history of climate sensitivity there hasn't actually been much revision to the estimate, it was established as in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 in 1979, and the most recent IPCC report (5th) has the range as 1.5 to 4.5.

In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality.

The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.

Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scientific Method requires the old false hypothesis be discarded and a new hypothesis generated.

Skeptical Science provides well written articles that debunk over a hundred of the most common arguments that claim global warming isn't real. Each of those articles is back by actual peer reviewed science, with links to plenty of supporting evidence and supplemental reading. It's an excellent source for anyone who wants to know more about climate change issues. The problem with your claims is that the mainstream AGW predictions actually match reality pretty well, they are consistently much more accurate than the Skeptics that keep predicting that we will have global cooling, and that Arctic ice levels will soon return to the long term average (or higher). They've been making those predictions for at least 20 years now, and never been right. The years are warmer and the Arctic ice keeps getting smaller.

But what is clear at the moment is that the scaremongering of the old hypothesis is unfounded.

What scaremongering? All I've done is correct your many factual errors.

All you eco loons continuing to cling to it are being anti-scientific. You made your predictions and you FAILED. Now you twist and turn because you don't care about science, you care about preserving the (falsified) dogmas of your self-flagellating cult of 'green environmentalism'. Only the 'mental' part of your cult is relevant.

And yet, I'm the one presenting you with articles backed by peer-reviewed science.

Comment Re:Surprisingly XKCD is wrong ! (Score 1) 221

So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,

Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?

And the Gaia Hypothesis is an interesting idea, but as wikipedia puts it:

While the Gaia hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould – notable, given the diversity of this trio's views on other scientific matters. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.

I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2).

Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.

The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can.

That's a good thing if the number of science denying alarmists is decreasing, it gives fewer straw men for the likes of you to knock down. Of course, it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers is also decreasing, so if you are right, that's a win all around.

The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.

That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years, if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age.

Comment Re:Whoopty Doo (Score 1) 843

How is he corrupt? Has corruption of Donald even been accused? He is many things but I didn't note corruptible being one of them. Who has bribed him? Site references please.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "corrupt".

Donald has taken and paid bribes. He's illegally dealt with Cuba while publicly claiming he would never deal with them. He's swindled people out of their money with his fake Trump University where he put two con artists with a long criminal history in charge, then when the inevitable investigation came along, he used his charity, the Trump Foundation, to bribe the Florida Attorney general into dropping the charges. Beyond that, Donald has lied about just about everything, but since he has never held a government office, he has not had the opportunity to betray that trust for his own financial benefit, yet.

Personally, I think it's rare for anyone to accuse Trump of being corrupt, because he is so obviously corrupt, it's just not news, so I am very amused by the people who think Trump will clean up "the corruption in politics".

Slashdot Top Deals

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.