People shout you down when you say things like black men have super high levels of testosterone and that's why they blah blah blah, and then don't even post a link to back up this nonsense but claim the onus is on others to post links disproving it.

That's the real dishonesty.

i posted a conversation between two actual experts and time stamped when and where they talk about the impact of testosterone. they briefly describe the science. gad saad is an evolutionary behavioral scientist who has done extensive research on testosterone and shopping habits. same with menstrual cycles. i produced the most simple and obvious data showing behavior correlated with hormones and it seems to have gone over your head

i doubt you even have an elementary understanding of genetic hormone imbalance. i mean the medical field has even discovered something as simple as sensitivity to salt among black people. there is disparity everywhere. this fully supported by the theory of evolution. maybe you don't understand that either

DBJ claimed to be a cop and wasn't.

Henry won that thread pretty satisfactorily, not least when microbet for some reason posted a picture supposedly of PR, Henry's girlfriend, who, if that really is her (as a few posters confirmed), scrubs up well. It seemed to make Henry's opponents go a bit quiet.

The low-level poker was something Henry just kept up on the screen all day as a mild distraction so he could concentrate on other stuff. The way writers, for instance, play music so they can work. You don't listen to the music, it just helps you concentrate. But Henry couldn't play music because he was at a desk at PR's place of business all day. He thought it was bad form to muck about at home while the gf had to go out to work, so he went with her. As to what he was concentrating on, apart from posting at 2+2, it was presumably sports betting, which made him a six-figure income.

He didn't stop posting because of that thread. He carried on for years after that, till he thought it was time to kick the habit. Also I don't think he liked being doxxed by an Amanda Knox supporter in a blog post. Knox supporters are a bit worrying and many of his 2+2 posts were in the Knox thread.

This is drivel. And contemptible drivel at that.

because you say so? or because scientists, medical researchers, darwin, and olympic committees are full of drivel?

or is it that everything we know about statistics is drivel? all the data we look at with strong statistical accuracy all points in the same direction is drivel?

you need to detach the fantasy world you have created and honestly allow yourself to accept reality. disparity is everywhere and thats normal

Great. With all this data around to back up your theory of how hormones affect black peoples behaviour more than non-blacks, it shouldn't take you long to post some links here.

The things that are important for climate prediction are irrelevant to weather prediction. Climate models have to deal with forcings while weather models don't have to consider changes in CO2/solar/etc. Weather prediction is heavily based on diagnosing initial conditions and running the simulation forward. Initial conditions are irrelevant to long term climate prediction.

It's not. Meteorologists putting together 10 day forecasts have no need to know about ice-albedo feedback. They don't work with radiative forcing--the most important aspect of AGW prediction.

Models are tested against seasonal variation, paleoclimate and the cooling following volcanic eruptions. Moreover, even if you didn't believe in the modeling, the empirical evidence for climate change is still quite strong.

You haven't demonstrated this in the least.

The peer reviewed literature also looks just like it would if the majority of qualified scientists agreed with the theory.

So is there a bias hiding qualified dissent and good arguments? I doubt it.

1. Papers skeptical of AGW have been published and continue to be published. They have little or no influence on scientific opinion.

2. There is no evidence that there are a significant number of papers questioning global warming that are rejected by journals.

3. Some skeptical papers that have been published have been deeply flawed.

So if there are a significant number of qualified researchers who can disprove AGW, where are their papers? Where are their arguments? There's an immense amount of fame and money for people who can disprove AGW.

I missed this earlier. It is completely false. Stunning ignorance.

i have already provided a mountain of undeniable evidence and referenced credible scientists who are specialists without a political agenda

im going to need a compelling reason to do more of that for you. im not convinced it would make a difference. maybe if a few of you write a compelling post describing how ignorant your world view has been and toxic it has been for progress in light of this information. that could compel me to educate you some more. at this point is just see another pivot

you asked for the info. what would it change if you got it? nothing? thought so

the funny thing you don't realize is that your pathetic world view is full of hate. you are blaming a massive population for being hateful and racist. you are attributing this to the troubles in the black community for example. your cause and solution is full of hate and finger pointing. on the other side, i feel like people are a victim of their own parents and their own decisions. i don't hate anyone in this case, i feel sorry for people. forget about race, stats show that race is far less of an indicator of crime than gender and age. yeah both men and women face same environmental problems, yet young men commit the vast majority of crime. this is disparity in hormones manifesting itself in to different outcomes in the same environment. you would see this clearly if there was a study between brothers and sisters and crime. i see it as putting both high risk and low risk people in a high risk environment and getting a disparity in outcomes

the left are the ones who are ocd about race. its a human problem. its a cultural problem. right now single parent families is a disaster zone for poverty and crime which is on the rise among all races. it just happens theres also disparity in race here. the issue of single parent homes needs to be addressed and its a color blind problem. people need to be made aware of the consequences of this behavior. people can make babies at their own discretion, but if people are going to point to disparity in poverty and then describe the disparity as racism when its largely due to sexual behavior, i have to say something. im not the one introducing race or focused on it. im talking about behavior with negative consequences truthfully

even your edit displays a ******ed understanding. hormones change within each person and it impacts their behavior. this is the most obvious and easy thing to understand. if you can't, after reading a bunch of posts and data explaining it, you're hopeless. its called aging and people aren't just behaving differently due to experience. horomones affect everyone. the notion that i have a "theory of how hormones affect black peoples behaviour more than non-blacks" is either a demonstration of extremely low intellectual honesty or extremely low intelligence

I stopped reading after your second para of nonsense and scanned the rest.

Let me guess. Does it say "I haven't pulled these claims out of my jacksy to support my deeply-held racist beliefs that blacks are socially inferior to whites (though boy, can they run fast and dance well!), and if I really wanted to I could post lots of evidence, but you're not worthy of my time because only I, Juan Carr Valdez, understands such complex matters"?

its funny how this exchange started with this

its like you have zero ability to learn anything. someone can actually start a conversation about intellectual dishonesty and describe it to you, and your response is blatant dishonesty

this only works if you are extremely arrogant. start every position as if you are right and know everything regardless of the facts. lies and dishonesty are justifiable because you are morally superior and always right. its so weird and pathetic

Of course there is. Professors get fired for questioning AGW. Deplatformed. Hounded. The universities that employ them get hate mail. Political interference. This isn't some theoretical event - it actually happens. It happened to a physics professor I know personally - an excellent scientist and learned man - who offered stock-standard scientific criticism of a research group's AGW claims.
You can't disprove AGW theory. That's the problem. We don't know the science well enough to do it. It's not falsifiable as it makes no testable, falsifiable predictions on any time scale at which we can conclusively test it.

This is AGW, in a nutshell:

1. There is a known mechanism for CO2 to increase temperature by 1 degree for a doubling. No one disagrees here, and if it's 1 degree, no one cares.
2. The climate has warmed by a lot more than this in the last 30 years
3. This needs to be accounted for. It could be one of the following:
3.1 Stable feedbacks from CO2 forcing
3.2 As yet unknown feedback mechanisms from other known forcings (example: solar increase)
3.3 Natural variation of unknown cause

The "consensus" view among climatologists is that it's 95% likely that 3.1 is true and the other effects are minor. But this is absolutely farcical. It's like the error bars on a Clinton win. Experts are people, and people are dog-stupid an they overestimate what they can see and underestimate what they can't, when analyzing complex systems. An example is the widespread belief, for decades, that it was impossible for human CO2 to alter the climate, because of multiple very, very strong reasons. This was consensus. It was thought absurd that CO2 could alter the climate. But it turned out that everything that scientists believed to come to this view was wrong. And that how previously not understood aspects of CO2 acted in the atmospheric boundary layer (among many other things) actually made warning possible.

Not much has changed since then, apart from our opinions doing a 180. We still understand the climate system so poorly, that we can't get anywhere near this number. What's more, we're not measuring a static system. Humans have substantially altered the face of the earth since the 1970s, when it's claimed CO2-induced warming started. As large bulldozers were invented, we began clearfelling large swathes of previously untouched forests. As population increased, slash and burn farmers added a lot too. Paved areas have doubled in size to cover 3% of the planet. We've altered the chemistry of the atmosphere with numerous pollutants, both locally in 1000 places and globally, from particulate matter to chemicals such as SO2 and N2O to effects that happen far away in the polar vortexes such as CFCs. We've altered heat flow and greatly altered moisture patterns with our large scale land use changes.

In addition, we don't live in a static cosmic environment. Sunspots, solar winds, high energy particles, greatly influence cloud formation and hence climate. And apart from sunspots, we have no useful measurement history.

It's truly an extraordinarily complex system and we understand very little of it. Do I blame some scientists (the non-corrupt/self interested ones) for putting it all down to the simple forcing they can focus on? No, I don't. That's how human minds think - visibility bias. The models have to be filled with something, and you have an easy correlate just begging to be picked up. CO2 went up! Temperatures went up! Let's link them causally! The observed warming is larger than CO2 forcing theory? Well, let's just tweak that and amp up the model's feedbacks to make it all work as we want. Then let's test it against the warming period to make sure it works. Can you say confirmation bias, batman? Data snooping?

I would say we have more ignorance than knowledge about the climate - particular related to clouds and their cover, something we don't even reliably measure! Yet they are affected in profound ways by the sun, aeorosols, cosmic particles, possibly chemicals, very likely forests (many of which we've cleared en masse for the first time since the 1970s - coincidence?), possibly microclimates. And they have very strong negative forcing - potentially stronger than CO2, according to the IPCC, with large uncertainty because they're so poorly understood. And even though they would disprove CO2-based AGW, we don't have the tools or hardware or theoretical knowledge to measure or model them. See the problem?

So no. When experts say it's "very likely" that it's CO2 causing most of this warming, they are morons. Confirmation bias, understandability bias, and visibility bias are incredibly powerful forces. I don't expect you or anyone to be able to see that though. Atmospheric physicists, I do. And they do...hence the numbers in these surveys.

Nope, my guess was wrong. Instead you chose to ignore the issue of links, data etc, but of course that's not because you're an intellectually dishonest white supremacist, is it?

Your whole line of argument is nonsense. You assume that anything unknown that we discover would have the effect of proving that CO2 has a lesser effect than we think it does now. That assumption is obviously wrong.

Example: Let's say we discover a new way the sun affects the earth's climate. We find that this mechanism had a cooling effect on the earth since 1950. In order to account for this new information, we must then conclude that CO2 has MORE influence on the climate than we previously thought.

You don't understand uncertainty. Error bars go both ways, not just the way you think they should go based on your politics.

Basically you are saying what we know doesn't count because something we don't know might mean CO2 has a lesser effect. But something we don't know might mean that CO2 has a greater effect.

The conversation subtly shifted away from an easily testable claim about the % of scientists who agree with the consensus position on AGW to some vague hand-wavy bull**** about the limits of human knowledge. Like, man, there might be unknown unknowns out there so all scientific modeling should just be thrown out. Plus remember that one time experts in an unrelated field were wrong about something? We should never listen to experts ever again! They say smoking is bad for you, but human biochemistry is orders of magnitude more complicated than atmospheric chemistry, so who can really say?

There's also the issue that you're continuing to hang your hat on the authority of one paper from a meteorological journal while also claiming that the experts are unreliable and entire scientific institution is a massive conspiracy. It's a textbook bit of cherrypicking.

That was won. The number isn't 97%. That's unsupportable. We moved on.

In highly uncertain fields, yes. Most of the parameters in this field have massive errors bars. A slight tweak turns cooling into warming. This isn't a controversial statement.

Experts are frequently wrong in complex fields with low knowledge of the key parameters.
We have millions of units to test in, who we can gather reliable data from, falsify predictions, and reach statistical significance.

The equivalent analogy is if we had millions of complete Earth atmospheres in which to test various levels of CO2 and what happens. That would make your smoking analogy accurate.

Right now we have one person who's we've tracked for 30 years and we're trying to model what will happen in the next 30 years of them smoking, and draw conclusions about the effects of smoke across the population from that, hoping that it's the smoke is causing their core body temperature to go up a small amount and stay elevated. And not other things we don't know about that might be causing it too.

That, my friend, is the accurate analogy. It's far closer to a diagnosis where the results don't match theory (1% is the theory) and we have to fiddle a lot, than an epidemiological study.
The other posted studies support that 97% is a lie. In a survey of 8000, of which 3400 replied, 82% of scientists in the broader field supported the very mild statement "Temperatures have risen since 1800. Human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures ". I agree with that statement. Only 90% of climatologists did.

So you can see how these studies support my position too - that the 97% is an inexcusable lie.

In that particular study, they then whittled those 3400 scientists down to 77 of the "most actively publishing", found 75 said yes to the above lowball proposition that even I agree with, and claimed that "97% of scientists support AGW" which was widely reported through the media and by Obama as proof that there was zero doubt among scientists that the planet was warming dangerously and man was causing it.

Hopefully you can see a problem with that...

Anyway, heading off for a while. I actually stayed home and posted tonight rather than go out and enjoy the freezing weather and the chance of getting run over by a Muslim in a truck. As much I like discussing with you guys, that's nuts. See you all in the new year...

Allah willing the truck will be merciful you will feel no pain

Lol

A hispanic white supremicist? Thats a new one.

And we are to deduce from your user name that you're Mongolian?

Have you heard of the Conquistadors? I guess not.

Yes! I love their music.

But mongo knows he's Hispanic because he saw him in those coffee commercials. Chessmate!