Global Warming

[KD in CA]

Not true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that it's the warmest decade in over 200,000 years. But there are some ambiguities in that data so you cannot say 200k years as a definite article of fact.

 

There are not "some ambiguities" (that you conveniently dismiss so they don't threaten your precious beliefs). There are many ambiguities. It's obvious that you have never works with statistics, projections, etc. so you have no idea how easy it is to come up with any result you want by tweaking variables in one direction or another. The more variables you have, the easier it is. And the wider the range of 'reasonable' conclusions for each variable, the easier it is.

 

Any claim to accurately guess at global temps thousands of years in the past based on data collected over the last 150 years (and the quality of most of that data is suspect) is using multiple assumptions that are each only a 'best-guess' and have a range of 'reasonable' conclusions. The multiplier effect means you can come up with any answer you want and still claim is falls within your 'scientific' reasonableness. This is how the same clowns conclude we are having an ice age 30 years ago but today are spreading hysteria about global warming.

[Alaska Darin]

so you have no idea how easy it is to come up with any result you want by tweaking variables in one direction or another. The more variables you have, the easier it is. And the wider the range of 'reasonable' conclusions for each variable, the easier it is.

Sincerely,

 

Enron, Wall Street, and the Default Credit Swaps, (the final 2 almost brought down the entire U.S./world economy and were so important to the government that they created even more ridiculous leftislation to cover the lack of oversight they were legally supposed to be providing anyway). But Global Warming is REAL!

[Rob's House]

ALL of these links are based on data that has either been discredited outright, has yet to be re-reviewed using proper methodology by a properly selected, OBJECTIVE, panel of scientists, was part of the Climitegate scandal, has been show to simply not exist, or has been defined as "speculation".

 

Show me something new, or, show me that any of the data has been re-reviewed properly, and I will listen. But they haven't...and the silence is deafening.

 

Why haven't these guys come back and defended themselves? Because they can't? We were told to listen to the scientists: OK, I have yet to hear a peep from the actual scientists. The only people we hear from on this anymore is a few left-wing TV talking heads trying to fight a rear guard action while their leaders and elected people are apparently pulling out.

 

The worst part of this post is that I'm well aware you are not trolling. You are actually serious.

 

You have however managed to stand by your standard posting format. Your first sentence is just a pile of absolute bull ****. You then build on this bull **** to form more bull ****. You make a ton of assumptions throughout your post that are not even close to true. You demonize the left, as you have been mentally conditioned to do.

I love it, Conner. He completely and effortlessly tears your "evidence" apart by simply stating the facts and your response is essentially "nah-uh" and "you're a troll". And you wonder why you guys aren't persuading anyone.

[KD in CA]

Sincerely,

 

Enron, Wall Street, and the Default Credit Swaps, (the final 2 almost brought down the entire U.S./world economy and were so important to the government that they created even more ridiculous leftislation to cover the lack of oversight they were legally supposed to be providing anyway). But Global Warming is REAL!

 

 

Yup. Great analogy.

 

Another one that I've dealt with personally is pension liabilities (one of the politicians' biggest secret that people like conner and those that watch Oprah will be stunned to learn about sometime in the next five years). Unfunded liability look a little too big? Oh, let's just tweak that assumed rate of return and that compensation growth assumption. There, that looks better.

[Wacka]

Connor, you still haven't answered my question. What is your science education?

[Alaska Darin]

Yup. Great analogy.

 

Another one that I've dealt with personally is pension liabilities (one of the politicians' biggest secret that people like conner and those that watch Oprah will be stunned to learn about sometime in the next five years). Unfunded liability look a little too big? Oh, let's just tweak that assumed rate of return and that compensation growth assumption. There, that looks better.

I'm not sure why I forgot to put that in, as they are the next thing that's going to cause a recession (or deepen this one because we're no where close to getting out of it). It'll be a total shock to the liberals, despite the litany of information that's been smashing them in the face for a couple of decades.

[Chef Jim]

Yup. Great analogy.

 

Another one that I've dealt with personally is pension liabilities (one of the politicians' biggest secret that people like conner and those that watch Oprah will be stunned to learn about sometime in the next five years). Unfunded liability look a little too big? Oh, let's just tweak that assumed rate of return and that compensation growth assumption. There, that looks better.

 

It's all very easy and very scary.

[Bishop Hedd]

SOCIALISM ACORN BIRTHCERTIFICATE

[KD in CA]

It's all very easy and very scary.

 

And no one will fix it because "OMG!!! THEY ARE GOING AFTER SENIORS' PENSIONS!!!!!!!!11111"

 

Just like how every idiot is now regurgitating the "laying off school teachers and firemen!!!!" nonsense any time the mere idea of cutting gov't spending is raised.

[Alaska Darin]

SOCIALISM ACORN BIRTHCERTIFICATE

IDIOT RETARD BISHOP HEDD

[OCinBuffalo]

IDIOT RETARD BISHOP HEDD

Does it feel better to get that out of your system?

[drnykterstein]

There are not "some ambiguities" (that you conveniently dismiss so they don't threaten your precious beliefs). There are many ambiguities. It's obvious that you have never works with statistics, projections, etc. so you have no idea how easy it is to come up with any result you want by tweaking variables in one direction or another. The more variables you have, the easier it is. And the wider the range of 'reasonable' conclusions for each variable, the easier it is.

 

Any claim to accurately guess at global temps thousands of years in the past based on data collected over the last 150 years (and the quality of most of that data is suspect) is using multiple assumptions that are each only a 'best-guess' and have a range of 'reasonable' conclusions. The multiplier effect means you can come up with any answer you want and still claim is falls within your 'scientific' reasonableness. This is how the same clowns conclude we are having an ice age 30 years ago but today are spreading hysteria about global warming.

In addition to the ambiguities, you tard, there are many thing that are not-ambiguous. For example the greenhouse effect is not ambiguous at all, it's extremely sound science. The measure of the carbon levels in the ice cores is accurate. The Short term assessments from the last 1000 years is very reliable and accurate.

 

There is very little guessing involved here, and the fact that you've managed to convince yourself that scientists just spend their time making guesses and claiming them as fact would explain why you hate science so much. Are you sure you don't have a sharp object lodged in your brain that you are not aware of? Go see a doctor.

 

Sincerely,

 

Enron, Wall Street, and the Default Credit Swaps, (the final 2 almost brought down the entire U.S./world economy and were so important to the government that they created even more ridiculous leftislation to cover the lack of oversight they were legally supposed to be providing anyway). But Global Warming is REAL!

 

Unrelated things are unrelated.

 

I love it, Conner. He completely and effortlessly tears your "evidence" apart by simply stating the facts and your response is essentially "nah-uh" and "you're a troll". And you wonder why you guys aren't persuading anyone.

OC's posting was so ridiculously based in an alternate reality that I did not and would not consider giving it a serious response. I've given the "cleaning a sewer" analogy before regarding this guy. That analogy holds true again for his post in this thread.

 

Connor, you still haven't answered my question. What is your science education?

I'll assume you want this information in order to make ad hominem arguments against me.

[KD in CA]

In addition to the ambiguities, you tard, there are many thing that are not-ambiguous. For example the greenhouse effect is not ambiguous at all, it's extremely sound science. The measure of the carbon levels in the ice cores is accurate. The Short term assessments from the last 1000 years is very reliable and accurate.

 

There is very little guessing involved here, and the fact that you've managed to convince yourself that scientists just spend their time making guesses and claiming them as fact would explain why you hate science so much. Are you sure you don't have a sharp object lodged in your brain that you are not aware of? Go see a doctor.

 

Uh no, retard, there is a huge amount of guessing involved. Like I said, you obviously have never done any type of statistical analysis so it's not surprising that you so badly fail to understand what is involved.

 

Which does raise a question -- what exactly do you do for a living? You've yet to display anything resembling intelligence on any topic every discussed here.

[OCinBuffalo]

Uh no, retard, there is a huge amount of guessing involved. Like I said, you obviously have never done any type of statistical analysis so it's not surprising that you so badly fail to understand what is involved.

 

Which does raise a question -- what exactly do you do for a living? You've yet to display anything resembling intelligence on any topic every discussed here.

Due to that...I'd guess paid "netroots" type who trolls on this and every other political message board he can find. His lack of ability to construct a valid argument, and disinterest in doing so says it all: he's about spewing out posts for their billboard value, and he didn't count on having to actually back up them up.

 

But, whoops, he runs into the posters on this board. And, our expertise, education, knowledge+experience=wisdom, combines to swat away his idiotic billboard posts literally every day.

 

I may disagree wholeheartedly with the likes of SDS, X.Benedict, Kelly the Dog, etc., but there's no doubt they are reasonable people that aren't here here to spew nonsensical, billboard spam.

 

Conner is nothing like these guys and it's clear by the sheer # of posts he makes, that there's something more to this for him than the casual dalliance it is for the rest of us.

[DC Tom]

In addition to the ambiguities, you tard, there are many thing that are not-ambiguous. For example the greenhouse effect is not ambiguous at all, it's extremely sound science. The measure of the carbon levels in the ice cores is accurate. The Short term assessments from the last 1000 years is very reliable and accurate.

 

No, they're not. The actual research papers on the subject themselves say so. You'd know that if you pulled your head out of your ass for five minutes and read one.

[Alaska Darin]

Does it feel better to get that out of your system?

I was feeling just fine when I typed it. No change.

 

Unrelated things are unrelated.

Tremendous example of why you're an idiot.

[GG]

Yup. Great analogy.

 

Another one that I've dealt with personally is pension liabilities (one of the politicians' biggest secret that people like conner and those that watch Oprah will be stunned to learn about sometime in the next five years). Unfunded liability look a little too big? Oh, let's just tweak that assumed rate of return and that compensation growth assumption. There, that looks better.

 

You're wrong. Asset values will continue to rise above 10% in perpetuity, people are not going to live longer lives and birth rates and job participation are going to increase. Aging baby boomers are a myth, because I haven't seen a hockey stick graph describing them.

[Chef Jim]

You're wrong. Asset values will continue to rise above 10% in perpetuity, people are not going to live longer lives and birth rates and job participation are going to increase. Aging baby boomers are a myth, because I haven't seen a hockey stick graph describing them.

 

CALPERS answer? Let's take on more risk.

[KD in CA]

CALPERS answer? Let's take on more risk.

 

 

Rather than rely on safe bets such as U.S. Treasury bonds, Dear is embracing investments in private equity, emerging nations, hedge funds and public works projects in his pursuit of market-beating profits.

 

What?!?!? The pensions of salt-of-the-earth government employees are being investing with private equity scam artists and evil hedge funds?!?!?!? Conner's head might explode on that news.

 

 

as total unfunded liabilities reached a record $1 trillion

 

[Chef Jim]

What?!?!? The pensions of salt-of-the-earth government employees are being investing with private equity scam artists and evil hedge funds?!?!?!? Conner's head might explode on that news.

 

 

 

 

 

It's like the idiots I sit down with and tell me "I'm behind on my retirement, I need to take more risk." No, you need to save more, retire later and cut back on your planned retirement lifestyle. Maybe I should manage the CALPERS portfolio. Let's see 1% of $200,000,000,000 would be a nice little annual income.