Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Science, Math, and Philosophy Discussions regarding science, math, and/or philosophy.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2017, 02:23 AM   #76
Zeno
Le Misanthrope
 
Zeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spitsbergen
Posts: 14,451
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I group Albania with Paraguay and Uruguay; as counties that if bombed out of existence few would even notice, and even less would care.
Zeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 02:43 AM   #77
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Local Group
Posts: 14,842
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I would notice AND care

plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 08:11 AM   #78
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Local Group
Posts: 14,842
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Came to think of if the stupidities going on in Britain and the US can have something to do with the two-party system? Making it look there always is exactly one other alternative?

plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 08:40 AM   #79
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

You know, Trump was perhaps the only one to realize Ali G was having a go in seconds:



High level career diplomats had no clue...sucked right in:



This is James Baker, former Secretary of State. I used to love those interviews. This is the level of stupid Trump is saying we have in our government, and why the US gets taken advantage of by. As always, Trump is right

P.S. One for the road: the Surgeon General of the United States


Last edited by ToothSayer; 02-11-2017 at 08:45 AM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 01:13 PM   #80
GBP04
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
GBP04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sevilla
Posts: 7,748
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I used to love that show


Ali G was the best character but this is my favorite clip
GBP04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2017, 12:39 AM   #81
masque de Z
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
masque de Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stanford, CA USA
Posts: 8,387
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Trump is a large scale con artist. His latest con job is to convince some smart people that he is not a life long con artist.


I would be very careful if his popularity doesn't rise up a bit. He will create for sure an international crisis that will force the simplistic thinking Americans needed to go over 50% to join him for "patriotic reasons" like the morons did on Iraq war start up.

Not only i didnt like Iraq war back then unlike your hero but i was thumbs down and even flag upside down when it was decided, well before the concept was taken by movies. I was pro invade Syria with 500k coalition to take down ISIS though. Then the smart people in politics attacked me for wanting to defend the antiquities there. Unable to understand that you can only defeat bad ideas like Islamic extremism and even some mainstream Islam that brings to life the extremists with better ideas. Although at any point in time saving a human life is more important than a monument when forced with the decision, they will remain more important than human deaths the way our world is currently finding itself because they are precisely the symbols and heritage that would prevent us from doing all these other ugly things to each other . When the world is unable to act to protect 2000+ year old monuments that represent the rise of man, you know we dont deserve these ideas or it is time to erect new better ones by going through the fire again.

Last edited by masque de Z; 02-12-2017 at 12:56 AM.
masque de Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2017, 05:21 AM   #82
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Local Group
Posts: 14,842
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Returning briefly to Brexit. This was my prediction in July: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...=#post50384901

Could maybe have cashed in 4/1 if playing, remains to be seen, the clock is ticking. The soft Brexit (Norwegian etc. way) prediction doesn't look to kick in though?

Last edited by plaaynde; 02-12-2017 at 05:35 AM.
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2017, 04:02 PM   #83
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Local Group
Posts: 14,842
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Poolitical.

Is that an old joke?
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2017, 05:44 PM   #84
FoldnDark
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
FoldnDark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: St. Louie
Posts: 11,577
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out




From my super secret scientist facebook page. I don't get you fools who claim to both support Trump and science, since he is so anti-science.

Any of yall near St. Louie, holler and I'll let you in the super secret nerds group. We march in April!
FoldnDark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2017, 07:31 PM   #85
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

How is Trump anti-science? I don't get it. On climate change for example, he holds the same view as at least 30% of professional atmospheric physicists:



If that's "anti-science" the science and the narrative we have around it are totally broken.

I am one of the most pro science and pro environment people on this forum. However, unlike most "pro science" and "pro environment" people, I actually am. I follow the principles of science and reason and environmentalism where they lead.

Thus when Obama has policies that have the practical effect of sending emissions soaring far more than necessary by pushing agreements that allow China to pollute at will while pushing up the cost and complexity of highly efficient US manufacturing, thus greatly increasing CO2 output per unit of consumption for no reason whatsoever, he is worse than Trump, regardless of how many farcical "this is the moment we stop the rise of the oceans" statements he made to get idiots who use terms like "anti-science" to vote for him.

We can disagree on many things, but Obama is worse than Trump for the environment and CO2 emissions. That's a direct consequence of each of their policies. I'm all for doing something serious and meaningful about CO2 emissions. But utterly worthless symbolism - which is in fact more polluting than its direct opposite! - is a cancer and should be opposed. Environmental symbolism and the false narratives around green power that the left wing media push are possibly the most harmful things that could be done to the environment and emissions. There are ways we reduce emissions, but the fake, anti-science narratives of the media and environmental movement, which have infected the public consciousness, block those solutions. In fact stop use even realizing they're necessary, and the only way.

As for climate scientists, they're a self-interested group loving the money and celebrity and job stability that comes from public funding of their useless research. Of course they're going to be crybabies and agitators when that gets threatened. No different to big oil or big tobacco. It does mean they're right.

Last edited by ToothSayer; 02-12-2017 at 07:38 PM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2017, 11:20 PM   #86
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
How is Trump anti-science? I don't get it. On climate change for example, he holds the same view as at least 30% of professional atmospheric physicists:



If that's "anti-science" the science and the narrative we have around it are totally broken.

I am one of the most pro science and pro environment people on this forum. However, unlike most "pro science" and "pro environment" people, I actually am. I follow the principles of science and reason and environmentalism where they lead.

Thus when Obama has policies that have the practical effect of sending emissions soaring far more than necessary by pushing agreements that allow China to pollute at will while pushing up the cost and complexity of highly efficient US manufacturing, thus greatly increasing CO2 output per unit of consumption for no reason whatsoever, he is worse than Trump, regardless of how many farcical "this is the moment we stop the rise of the oceans" statements he made to get idiots who use terms like "anti-science" to vote for him.

We can disagree on many things, but Obama is worse than Trump for the environment and CO2 emissions. That's a direct consequence of each of their policies. I'm all for doing something serious and meaningful about CO2 emissions. But utterly worthless symbolism - which is in fact more polluting than its direct opposite! - is a cancer and should be opposed. Environmental symbolism and the false narratives around green power that the left wing media push are possibly the most harmful things that could be done to the environment and emissions. There are ways we reduce emissions, but the fake, anti-science narratives of the media and environmental movement, which have infected the public consciousness, block those solutions. In fact stop use even realizing they're necessary, and the only way.

As for climate scientists, they're a self-interested group loving the money and celebrity and job stability that comes from public funding of their useless research. Of course they're going to be crybabies and agitators when that gets threatened. No different to big oil or big tobacco. It does mean they're right.
Did you actually read the study you linked to?
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2017, 11:52 PM   #87
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2 View Post
Did you actually read the study you linked to?
Did you actually read the post you replied to?
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 12:33 AM   #88
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Skimmed it.

Second question: do you know what a "professional member of the AMS" is?

Hint: most of them are the guys and gals who read the weather at you on the evening news
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 04:50 AM   #89
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I do. Second question: do you know how to read and extract the salient facts?

Here's the shorthand: only 61% of publishing atmospheric physicists, who mostly publish on climate - these people aren't weather men on the evening news - subscribe to the view that "global warming is happening and it is mostly caused by humans". When you look at the broader set of publishing atmospheric physicists, it's 57%.

Nearly half of these people don't subscribe the view that "global warming is happening and it is mostly caused by humans". You can how the claim of consensus and "no doubt among scientists" is simply false. Scientists hold enormous doubt.

It is certainly not "anti science", then, to hold the view that:

- There is substantial uncertainty
- It's quite possible that little or none is caused by man.

When 40% of scientists trained in field believe exactly that. In fact, it is precisely science to be highly skeptical of the claims of a small set of self selected eco warriors, in a field as uncertain and incredibly poorly understood/modeled as climate "science".

This doesn't even go to the question of whether it's likely to warm dangerously (probably less than half think so if only 57% think it's at least half man made). Or what is the optimal way to deal with it is (Obama has taken the worst path possible if you start from the premise that catastrophic warming is mere decades away).

The global warming discussion and policy in the media and politics is pure nuttery and strongly anti science and strongly anti sensible policy (even if you agree with the catastrophic viewpoint).

Last edited by ToothSayer; 02-14-2017 at 04:55 AM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:56 AM   #90
Trolly McTrollson
Under your bridges
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Midwestern America
Posts: 19,027
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I like how you didn't bother to change your highlighting even after we pointed out how dishonest it is.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 10:03 AM   #91
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

It's not like the data isn't there in black and white to just read. And referenced in text. There is zero dishonesty in anything I've posted. Indeed, you are deeply dishonest for attempting to cast aspersions on something that's straight up. You're desperately trying to spin from hard data published in the most prestigious journal of the premier professional body for atmospheric physicists.

I realize the data is shocking in that it puts the utter lie to the claim, by Obama and the media and a handful of shills, that:
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 10:19 AM   #92
Trolly McTrollson
Under your bridges
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Midwestern America
Posts: 19,027
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I mean, the highlighting is right there for everyone to see: you tried to pass off the opinions of TV weathermen and high school teachers as expert scientific opinion. Frankly, the laziness is disappointing. I know no one in SMP will see through the fraud, but at least have some pride in your work.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 10:37 AM   #93
ecriture d'adulte
journeyman
 
ecriture d'adulte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 290
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Regardless, Trumps statements on global warming are obviously anti science. He's flip flopped from major issue to hoax by China depending on the situation.
ecriture d'adulte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:25 AM   #94
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson View Post
I mean, the highlighting is right there for everyone to see: you tried to pass off the opinions of TV weathermen and high school teachers as expert scientific opinion.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? You're the guy who confused an informal survey of ALL members, with this survey of professional members, published in a peer reviewed journal.

Here are facts that you're trying so terribly desperately to obscure: A mere 57% of publishing atmospheric physicists agree with the statement: "the climate is warming and man is mostly to blame". It's there in black and white, man. People can go up and read it and see that you're desperately trying to spin the religion you follow that's been caught out in a lie. High school teachers and weathermen aren't publishing scientists, bro.

Quote:
Frankly, the laziness is disappointing. I know no one in SMP will see through the fraud, but at least have some pride in your work.
You're trying so, so hard to smear. This is the level of science denial that I/Trump have to deal with. It's sad, frankly. You're on par with a creationist. This kind of behavior - blatant anti-science lies and shameless exaggerations, then doubling down when caught - is why the global warming narrative has lost a lot of public trust. Just tell the truth - no need to lie.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 12:03 PM   #95
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte View Post
Regardless, Trumps statements on global warming are obviously anti science. He's flip flopped from major issue to hoax by China depending on the situation.
His statements are fine. He's not an authority and that's obvious to all that listen - he's a guy with an opinion - an opinion that happens to be more correct and more useful than Obama/most of the green left media.

The China stuff is a self-evident wry commentary on the madness of policy around global warming, especially toward China.

You could call his vaccination stance anti science. I can't think of another example though.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 12:26 PM   #96
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
I do. Second question: do you know how to read and extract the salient facts?

Here's the shorthand: only 61% of publishing atmospheric physicists, who mostly publish on climate - these people aren't weather men on the evening news - subscribe to the view that "global warming is happening and it is mostly caused by humans". When you look at the broader set of publishing atmospheric physicists, it's 57%.

Nearly half of these people don't subscribe the view that "global warming is happening and it is mostly caused by humans". You can how the claim of consensus and "no doubt among scientists" is simply false. Scientists hold enormous doubt.

It is certainly not "anti science", then, to hold the view that:

- There is substantial uncertainty
- It's quite possible that little or none is caused by man.

When 40% of scientists trained in field believe exactly that. In fact, it is precisely science to be highly skeptical of the claims of a small set of self selected eco warriors, in a field as uncertain and incredibly poorly understood/modeled as climate "science".

This doesn't even go to the question of whether it's likely to warm dangerously (probably less than half think so if only 57% think it's at least half man made). Or what is the optimal way to deal with it is (Obama has taken the worst path possible if you start from the premise that catastrophic warming is mere decades away).

The global warming discussion and policy in the media and politics is pure nuttery and strongly anti science and strongly anti sensible policy (even if you agree with the catastrophic viewpoint).
How did you arrive at your 61%? Sometimes it is important to actually read the words that are surrounding a chart. You didn't divide by 128 like a silly person, did you?
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 12:51 PM   #97
Trolly McTrollson
Under your bridges
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Midwestern America
Posts: 19,027
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I mean, you could have just highlighted the 78% figure and it would at least have been a defensible point. It's still a cherry-picked article, but you come have been semi-honest about its findings and made your case.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 01:45 PM   #98
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2 View Post
How did you arrive at your 61%? Sometimes it is important to actually read the words that are surrounding a chart. You didn't divide by 128 like a silly person, did you?
You're turning into a third rate Socratic schoolmistress who hasn't been laid in a while. If you have a point to make, make it. You don't, hence the silly/content free questions and snide remarks. Your point will evaporate like mist as soon as you actually try to make one.

I'm doing this as a favor to you. I could answer your questions with questions ad naseum until you and everyone else understand how juvenile and silly your questions are, but I wouldn't do that SMP readers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson View Post
I mean, you could have just highlighted the 78% figure and it would at least have been a defensible point.
Why would I have a defensible point then? My claim is that this statement is a lie:

Quote:
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
I want you to read this statement, understand what it says in plain English, then get back to me. You're just off in fairy land hand here.

The claim isn't "97% of the 1% of climatologists who are the most actively publishing on climate topics believe that man in heating the world dangerously" - then your comments would be relevant. That isn't the claim I'm debunking. The claim I'm debunking, widely repeated without qualifiers, is that:
Quote:
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
This is a false statement. The data proves it false.

That you cannot concede this point is absolutely mind blowing. This is why Trump won. It is obvious you are dead wrong here and should concede, but you double down like a religious person, and dishonestly to boot. It's almost as if you and many like you think that if you concede that it's not the dire picture painted, that there is significant doubt and uncertainty, and that there is far from 100% consensus, all is lost and the devil wins. It's just weird, man. That's not how science progresses and that's not honest debate progresses. It's in fact how you lose the debate. People with worldviews and debating tactics like yours are why we have (from your perspective) a racist nut in the White House and Republicans controlling all seats of power. People are sick to death of your nonsense and lack of awareness of your own glaring logical and moral shortcomings, while hectoring others.
Quote:
It's still a cherry-picked article, but you come have been semi-honest about its findings and made your case.
Again, this is just mind blowing. The claims is that 97% of scientists - not climate scientists, not the most actively publishing climate scientists. (and it's false even for that) - think that global warming is manmade and dangerous. This study debunks this totally. A fake picture of consensus is being presented.

I can't talk to you, man. You're too deranged. Pure religious/tribal indoctrination. It's sad because you're smart.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 01:53 PM   #99
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I did make my point. 78% is not 61%.

Learn how to read.
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 02:26 PM   #100
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2 View Post
I did make my point. 78% is not 61%.

Learn how to read.
Please explain to me what part of this text your brain is unable to parse. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Here's the shorthand: only 61% of publishing atmospheric physicists, who mostly publish on climate - these people aren't weather men on the evening news - subscribe to the view that "global warming is happening and it is mostly caused by humans". When you look at the broader set of publishing atmospheric physicists, it's 57%.
This was in response to the outright shameless lie by Trolly that this was "weathermen and school teachers".

As for you, I have no idea what trip you're on. 78% is not 61%! Congratulations. Now why don't you expound wtf that has to do with anything?

I promise you that if you do, the point you imagine you're making will evaporate like mist. It's happened before.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online