|
"Oh, well...uh...you lost your cool! Checkmate! You lose, climate changailure "
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 04:56 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 07:19 |
|
There are 'proponents' of climate change, and there are skeptics. Turns out the science is in, though, and the skeptics are wrong.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 05:12 |
|
Even if climate change is true and the floods and weather patterns kill millions of people, it could be worse...at least we didn't lose those dangerous coal-mining jobs! What a nightmare world that would be, right?
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:03 |
|
Big fan of the little line about "the flawed '97% consensus'". I'd love to know exactly what makes it flawed.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:05 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Even if climate change is true and the floods and weather patterns kill millions of people, it could be worse...at least we didn't lose those dangerous coal-mining jobs! What a nightmare world that would be, right? From the same guy: It's pretty much the "Gas prices are low, let's all buy Hummers" politoon except completely unironic. Techno Remix posted:Big fan of the little line about "the flawed '97% consensus'". I'd love to know exactly what makes it flawed. That Climategate email thing from several years back is the standard fallback.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:10 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:From the same guy: Man, don't you just love it how you can be such a Serious Person™ by going "oh, environmentalists, amirite?" Also I'm catching a hint of this, except "since gas prices are falling, let's not give the president credit instead":
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:16 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That Climategate email thing from several years back is the standard fallback. I've only done a cursory reading on the subject, but the multiple reviews of the reports in question showed that the conclusions presented in those reports were still valid, right? Like, completely valid? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised that climate change deniers aren't swayed by things like science but...drat.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:24 |
|
Techno Remix posted:I've only done a cursory reading on the subject, but the multiple reviews of the reports in question showed that the conclusions presented in those reports were still valid, right? Like, completely valid? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised that climate change deniers aren't swayed by things like science but...drat. This is a good resource, they have a phone app too: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm quote:In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing: How many investigations need to occur?
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:31 |
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:How many investigations need to occur? I imagine the answer is one, as long as the investigation says "we reviewed climate change and it's totally a hoax, guys." (Seriously, thanks for the resource.)
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 06:42 |
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:This is a good resource, they have a phone app too: Something something Permanent Committee on That's a good link though, thanks.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 07:12 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I think another issue that a lot of the YEC crowd run into stems from the believe that the Earth is, in fact, only 10,000 years old. These people discard all sorts of science but also fail to understand things like infinite space and infinite time. Yeah life as we know it on Earth has a ridiculously tiny chance to exist in any particular randomly chosen location in space and time. However, with infinite space and infinite time available all things that are possible, no matter how improbable, are guaranteed to happen somewhere. Not that I disagree with your overall point, but the part I bolded is very incorrect and shows a fundamental (and reasonably easily provable) misunderstanding of infinity.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 07:43 |
|
Hilbert Spaceship posted:Not that I disagree with your overall point, but the part I bolded is very incorrect and shows a fundamental (and reasonably easily provable) misunderstanding of infinity. Easy enough for you to share it with us?
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:09 |
|
I'm digging all the way back from last week, but loving hell I just saw this posted by an otherwise pretty liberal Vietnamese guy. I just took the part where this cop goes "To idolize gangsters, thugs, sexually promiscuous behavior, and criminals over hard work, dedication, and achievement" and was like "really, man?" Wasn't in the mood to dissect the poop. Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Dec 29, 2014 |
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:19 |
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Easy enough for you to share it with us? If you modify Cantor's diagonal argument in such a way as to define a generator function G(n), returning a random (it can even be unique, but that restriction isn't necessary for this proof) real number, then if you were to build a list of results for G(n) for 1...inf and call the result set G, then the second part of Cantor's argument would apply without modification, which would prove that set G does not and cannot include all possible real numbers, even though each of them were a possible outcome. e: the important part here being that infinity does not work in very intuitive ways, and Cantor's argument was the first to prove that there are different sizes of infinity.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:20 |
|
Hilbert Spaceship posted:Not that I disagree with your overall point, but the part I bolded is very incorrect and shows a fundamental (and reasonably easily provable) misunderstanding of infinity. I'm not sure what you mean. Since you seem to be talking mathematics here, that bolded statement is equivalent to the statement "for any probability space (Ω, F, P) and for any X∈F such that P(X)>0, the limit of the number of occurences of X as the number of samples from Ω approaches infinity is strictly greater than 0." Unless I'm way off on my probability, that's definitely a true statement. Edit: Hilbert Spaceship posted:If you modify Cantor's diagonal argument in such a way as to define a generator function G(n), returning a random (it can even be unique, but that restriction isn't necessary for this proof) real number, then if you were to build a list of results for G(n) for 1...inf and call the result set G, then the second part of Cantor's argument would apply without modification, which would prove that set G does not and cannot include all possible real numbers, even though each of them were a possible outcome. That argument only applies if the number of states of the universe is uncountably infinite. There's no reason to think that this is necessarily the case. And even if it turns out that some physical variables can have irrational values, you can just rationalize the universe; just set arbitrary cutoffs on all decimal representations for the values of physical variables at, say, the one-googolplexth decimal place, and for a given specific state we'd never be able to measure the difference even in principle. Then all possible values for all possible physical variables are rational, and so the number of possible distinguishable states in the universe is countably infinite. Edit2: Wait, countably infinite isn't quite far enough. Putting some reasonable bounds on all state variables kicks it down even further to a finite set of states, though, so yeah the original statement is true when it comes to the actual universe in which we live and the context in which it was given. Idran fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Dec 29, 2014 |
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:25 |
|
Idran posted:I'm not sure what you mean. Since you seem to be talking mathematics here, that bolded statement is equivalent to the statement "for any probability space (Ω, F, P) and for any X∈F such that P(X)>0, the limit of the number of occurences of X as the number of samples from Ω approaches infinity is strictly greater than 0." Unless I'm way off on my probability, that's definitely a true statement. The fundamental nature of the universe (and possibly multiverse) is still a very open question, and making the flat assertion that we can simply assume the universe and all its possible states and everything that could ever exist to be countably infinite with no loss of generality is entirely unfounded. The statement that "with infinite space and infinite time available all things that are possible, no matter how improbable, are guaranteed to happen somewhere" is untrue and demonstrably so.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:42 |
|
Hilbert Spaceship posted:The fundamental nature of the universe (and possibly multiverse) is still a very open question, and making the flat assertion that we can simply assume the universe and all its possible states and everything that could ever exist to be countably infinite with no loss of generality is entirely unfounded. The statement that "with infinite space and infinite time available all things that are possible, no matter how improbable, are guaranteed to happen somewhere" is untrue and demonstrably so. In your example any real variable not in the range of G(n) is not a member of the sample space, and so is not "a thing that is possible" in that sample space. The statement "for any probability space (Ω, F, P) and for any X∈F such that P(X)>0, the limit of the number of occurences of X as the number of samples from Ω approaches infinity is strictly greater than 0" is true. Also this is a dumb derail for pretty much every other poster here anyway, I'm betting, so we should probably take this to PMs.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:46 |
|
Hilbert Spaceship posted:The fundamental nature of the universe (and possibly multiverse) is still a very open question, and making the flat assertion that we can simply assume the universe and all its possible states and everything that could ever exist to be countably infinite with no loss of generality is entirely unfounded. The statement that "with infinite space and infinite time available all things that are possible, no matter how improbable, are guaranteed to happen somewhere" is untrue and demonstrably so. I'm not really following. Even if something has something like a one in 10^10^10^10 chance of happening if you give it enough chances it eventually will. It might take thoroughly ridiculous amounts of time but it will happen eventually. The only things that will never happen are the impossible. But then that also depends on if time and space are, in fact, never ending and go on forever. If there is finite space or the patterns of the universe repeat after a finite space then they aren't quite infinite. Same with time; if time is going to run out, even if the amount of it is more than we could feasibly count, then it isn't infinite and nothing is guaranteed.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:48 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm not really following. Even if something has something like a one in 10^10^10^10 chance of happening if you give it enough chances it eventually will. It might take thoroughly ridiculous amounts of time but it will happen eventually. The only things that will never happen are the impossible. But then that also depends on if time and space are, in fact, never ending and go on forever. If there is finite space or the patterns of the universe repeat after a finite space then they aren't quite infinite. Same with time; if time is going to run out, even if the amount of it is more than we could feasibly count, then it isn't infinite and nothing is guaranteed. He's essentially saying "a set of all odd numbers is infinite, but even though 2 is a possible number, no matter how many times you grab a number from the set you'll never find 2 even after an infinite amount of draws"; different sizes of infinity don't even need to come into it for his core argument. The problem is that when you're starting with "set of all odd numbers", "2" isn't a possible number in that universe. You're right that anything with a nonzero chance of happening will eventually happen given unlimited time, and "has a nonzero chance of happening" is what most anyone means by "is possible" (even if it's not what probabilists necessarily mean by it ).
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:52 |
|
Idran posted:He's essentially saying "a set of all odd numbers is infinite, but even though 2 is a possible number, no matter how many times you grab a number from the set you'll never find 2 even after an infinite amount of draws"; different sizes of infinity don't even need to come into it for his core argument. The problem is that when you're starting with "set of all odd numbers", "2" isn't a possible number in that universe. That's very specifically not what I'm saying. In my post I described the generator function as "returning a random real number", this means that the domain of G is all real numbers. Then, if you build a set of real numbers by associating with each integer, a unique value of G (any of which could be any real numbers), then you will still, provably, never return a set of all real numbers.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 08:57 |
|
Infinity does not work in a very intuitive or 'common sense' logical manner. The correct first response upon coming into contact with mathematics involving infinity is 'what?'
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 09:05 |
|
Idran posted:He's essentially saying "a set of all odd numbers is infinite, but even though 2 is a possible number, no matter how many times you grab a number from the set you'll never find 2 even after an infinite amount of draws"; different sizes of infinity don't even need to come into it for his core argument. The problem is that when you're starting with "set of all odd numbers", "2" isn't a possible number in that universe. Oh OK. Yeah, that was basically what I was saying. Something that is literally impossible will never happen but all possible things will. Some things just can't happen, like pulling an even number out of the set of all odds. That is impossible. But if you're working with the set of all odd numbers you have a non-zero chance of picking a specific number. Enough random picks from the set of all odds and you will eventually get an eleven. Neruz posted:Infinity does not work in a very intuitive or 'common sense' logical manner. The correct first response upon coming into contact with mathematics involving infinity is 'what?' Yeah I remember when I started learning calculus the professor pulled the whole "if you travel exactly half the distance you can never get there, right?" thing and then went "nope, infinite travels will close the distance." Infinity is loving weird, man.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 09:16 |
|
I'm sure someone had it worse than I, but during a conversation with my mother over Christmas I came away with the dozy, "... I would have been better off being born a black woman." To be fair, she had argued herself into a corner and then I asked the question but still. We're from the St. Louis burbs and she was going on about how the remaining protesters keep shutting everything down and they couldn't go do anything because they didn't know when protesters would show up! She also thinks that the remaining protesters in St. Louis are, "professional protesters and anarchists who are destroying the local economy." Generally she agrees with my point that special state prosecutors need to be used to investigate and prosecute local police during shootings or corruption cases and she doesn't vote republican because they keep wanting to cut school budgets, which she holds as sacred. But it's just frustrating seeing someone you love lose all perspective. Anubis fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Dec 29, 2014 |
# ? Dec 29, 2014 14:31 |
|
quote:Many prophets have been shown that Russia will attack America with nuclear weapons. Here are just a few of their warnings...please read all of the warnings herein, you will realize that this will happen in the very near future. My uncle believes the Rapture will come in his lifetime. I'm not sure he really means it, though; he built a house.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 14:58 |
|
You know, typically the most important requirement for getting people to buy into your prophecies is writing them really well, with biblical allusions and mysterious imagery or at least with a good command of the language. Most of those read like something written by a dumb high school student trying to sound erudite and using vocabulary he doesn't fully understand. Who finds that poo poo compelling? Read a sci-fi novel, it'll have better descriptions of the apocalypse. Also, Dmitri Duduman e: I realize the irony of initially using the wrong word in trying to characterize why these people sound dumb. Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 29, 2014 |
# ? Dec 29, 2014 15:16 |
|
Matthew 7:15-20 might be a useful test here.quote:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 16:10 |
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Matthew 7:15-20 might be a useful test here. Isn't there a similar one about how nobody can know when Jesus is coming back?
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 16:14 |
|
muscles like this? posted:Isn't there a similar one about how nobody can know when Jesus is coming back?
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 16:32 |
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:He's actually coming back tomorrow. He'll come back when Iran develops nukes.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 16:34 |
Mehuyael posted:He'll come back when Iran
|
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 16:43 |
|
muscles like this? posted:Isn't there a similar one about how nobody can know when Jesus is coming back? Like a Thief in the Night. quote:1 Thessalonians 5:2King James Version (KJV) The point of this is that there will be no announcements, no warnings or signs. You can prepare for it, but you won't know when it is until it is already happening.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 16:48 |
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I'm digging all the way back from last week, but loving hell I just saw this posted by an otherwise pretty liberal Vietnamese guy. I just took the part where this cop goes "To idolize gangsters, thugs, sexually promiscuous behavior, and criminals over hard work, dedication, and achievement" and was like "really, man?" Oh, he messaged me while I was asleep: quote:Though I disagree with those beliefs of idolizing gangsters and thugs and whatnot, i had to delete your comment due to profanity ...he missed the point.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 17:13 |
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Matthew 7:15-20 might be a useful test here. Um, didn't you read what Linda Newkirk said? She said that God told her that everyone who disagrees with her are actually the false prophets. And God can't lie, so obviously she's right. This is absolutely my favorite part though. quote:I saw the president of United States, President Obama, standing on the balcony and I saw in his hands a shotgun. All of a sudden, to my left hand side I heard a loud scream, real loud. When I turned my head to see where the scream was coming from I saw flying high in the air was a majestic eagle flying in the air around Washington DC. I knew that scream. I knew it was an eagle.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 23:23 |
|
Twelve by Pies posted:
Don't stop, I'm almost there
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 23:37 |
|
Funny thing is that bald eagles really sound like seagulls, so I have to wonder if Mr "I know that scream" really does...
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 23:48 |
|
He probably heard a red-tailed hawk, since thats the sound effect they use for bald eagles most often.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2014 23:50 |
|
Also I'm pretty sure a shotgun isn't going to do gently caress all against an eagle high in the air.
|
# ? Dec 30, 2014 05:20 |
|
Julio Cruz posted:Also I'm pretty sure a shotgun isn't going to do gently caress all against an eagle high in the air. I was just playing Farcry 4 and now I'm confused.
|
# ? Dec 30, 2014 05:25 |
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Um, didn't you read what Linda Newkirk said? She said that God told her that everyone who disagrees with her are actually the false prophets. And God can't lie, so obviously she's right. I like “I’ve done it and I won’t have to deal with this in my administration” as though each President since Washington has had to deal with some annoying eagle son of a bitch who constantly pesters them all day or something. "Hey Barack you gonna finish that? Can I eat that? Wanna watch the game while I talk the whole time? Barack? Hey Barack? Barack barack barack barack barack bar-" 'Not in my administration, rear end in a top hat!'
|
# ? Dec 30, 2014 06:12 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 07:19 |
|
Mo_Steel posted:I like “I’ve done it and I won’t have to deal with this in my administration” as though each President since Washington has had to deal with some annoying eagle son of a bitch who constantly pesters them all day or something. The Bald Seagull.
|
# ? Dec 30, 2014 06:18 |