If you don't believe in global warming, you're standing in the

[Bigfatbillsfan]

And the correlation between car ownership and gun violence being greater than the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is NOT an illusory correlation - it's both real, and meaningful. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of sociology should be able to figure out why inside of three minutes.

 

No, it is a propter hoc correlation and is weak at best and it may have some meaning but not much. Someone with knowledge in statistics such as you claim to have would know that. You don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore and are just trying to BS your way out of it. Like a said before, you're trying to knock over the chess pieces and **** all over the board.

 

Not until we find BF-squared's personal "fried crap" recipe. That will no doubt take two hours to cook.

 

It's sitting right next to you straw man argument.

[DC Tom]

No, it is a propter hoc correlation and is weak at best and it may have some meaning but not much.

 

No, it's not. What the !@#$ is a "propter hoc correlation," anyway? There's no such thing as a "propter hoc correlation". "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy, you can't slice-and-dice it to apply "propter hoc" to describe a correlation. Perhaps you mean "coincidental correlation"? Because "propter hoc correlation" doesn't even make any !@#$ing sense.

 

And it's a STRONG correlation, not a weak one. Stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. And there's a valid reason why that is. And any sociologist should be able to divine it very quickly.

 

You, of course, can't. Christ, you don't even know the definition of "strong" and "weak" correlation.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

No, it's not. What the !@#$ is a "propter hoc correlation," anyway? There's no such thing as a "propter hoc correlation". "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy, you can't slice-and-dice it to apply "propter hoc" to describe a correlation. Perhaps you mean "coincidental correlation"? Because "propter hoc correlation" doesn't even make any !@#$ing sense.

 

And it's a STRONG correlation, not a weak one. Stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. And there's a valid reason why that is. And any sociologist should be able to divine it very quickly.

 

You, of course, can't. Christ, you don't even know the definition of "strong" and "weak" correlation.

 

Propter hoc is short for Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

So why don't you go ahead and fill me in. Since this has turned into you trying to stroke your ego by arguing everything but the point. Tell me, why does owning a car cause gun violence?

[DC Tom]

Propter hoc is short for Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

Doesn't matter...it's still a fallacy, not a type of correlation. And it still doesn't make any sense. What the hell is a "fallacious correlation?"

 

So why don't you go ahead and fill me in. Since this has turned into you trying to stroke your ego by arguing everything but the point. Tell me, why does owning a car cause gun violence?

 

Where did I say it causes gun violence? I said it CORRELATES with gun violence more strongly than gun ownership does. I never said anything about cause.

 

Thus, the point: despite posting "correlation does not equal causation," you clearly can't distinguish between the two.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Doesn't matter...it's still a fallacy, not a type of correlation. And it still doesn't make any sense. What the hell is a "fallacious correlation?"

 

 

 

Where did I say it causes gun violence? I said it CORRELATES with gun violence more strongly than gun ownership does. I never said anything about cause.

 

Thus, the point: despite posting "correlation does not equal causation," you clearly can't distinguish between the two.

 

Holy !@#$ are you kidding me? Really? Are you?

 

This is what I'm talking about. You arguing against your own stupid straw man arguments. This is what I've been telling you the entire !@#$ing thread. Go back and read what I've been saying. The only way you get that correlation is through flooding the fields with variables. Data mapping is a tool used to find the causation, or lack of causation behind the correlation. That's what I've been saying. When you have correlation without causation it is illusory correlation, or propter hoc, fallacious. You pick.

 

The assertion that the world is warming comes from analyzing and mapping millions of data points from thousands of locations all over the world over a massive amount of time. Then taking the results and publishing them for pier review and seeing if they hold up against scrutiny. This has been done plenty of times with most of the worlds climatologists concluding that the earth is warming due to a rise in CO2 levels. You can find plenty of these PIER REVIEWED articles and studies online and in most scientific journals.

 

So yes, in the case of climate change, the STRONG correlation between Global Temperatures and CO2 holds up under scrutiny and makes a much stronger case for causation.

 

In the case of the Strong correlation between car ownership and gun violence: Because most of the population owns a car a person who commits a violent act with a gun is likely to own a car does not make a strong case for causation.

 

Do you see the difference now you dumb piece of ****.

 

God, I almost spit my coffee out of my mouth when I read what I think was supposed to be your "gotcha" post.

 

You spent 2+ pages arguing against yourself Captain Straw Man.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm still waiting for Gene Frenkle, or BF² to explain how any of this matters, since global temps have not increased for the last 15 years. http://tinyurl.com/bvaer8q

 

Also, and I know this comes as a shock to many of you: the "warming" is not hiding at the bottom of the ocean. So, where is it hiding? Instead of it causing more NEOs to hit earth, is it being transferred to passing NEOs?

 

Perhaps we should just include both Gene and BF² in the "some unexplained reason" group? This is fair, since I have yet to hear either of them account for where the warming, that isn't, is hiding.

 

Once again, this:

"The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now."

 

followed immediately by this:

"It does not mean global warming is a delusion."

 

...is all we need to know about how this entire thing is going to play out. They are going to cling for a while, and then call it a "puzzle", and eventually hope that most people just move on. Then they will find some new religious belief to cling to, and the rest of you better pray it doesn't affect your work.

 

Our farmboy here better pray that milk and/or fertilizer don't become the next target, because they are "making the world's water disappear"....or something else that violates the laws of physics, but, given enough boost, after starting out as a whisper campaign at Phish shows, turns out to be a Presidential election issue.

 

The assertion that the world is warming comes from analyzing and mapping millions of data points from thousands of locations all over the world over a massive amount of time.

This assertion, http://tinyurl.com/bvaer8q, is false. Now deal with it. Read the first sentence:

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."

 

then, watch the magazine who has spent the last decade propagating this story try to play save ass for the rest of it.

 

WTF else do you need to know? Orwell said: "To see what is front of one's nose requires constant struggle".

 

Are you even going to try, never mind struggle?

[DC Tom]

Holy !@#$ are you kidding me? Really? Are you?

 

This is what I'm talking about. You arguing against your own stupid straw man arguments. This is what I've been telling you the entire !@#$ing thread. Go back and read what I've been saying. The only way you get that correlation is through flooding the fields with variables. Data mapping is a tool used to find the causation, or lack of causation behind the correlation. That's what I've been saying. When you have correlation without causation it is illusory correlation, or propter hoc, fallacious. You pick.

 

The assertion that the world is warming comes from analyzing and mapping millions of data points from thousands of locations all over the world over a massive amount of time. Then taking the results and publishing them for pier review and seeing if they hold up against scrutiny. This has been done plenty of times with most of the worlds climatologists concluding that the earth is warming due to a rise in CO2 levels. You can find plenty of these PIER REVIEWED articles and studies online and in most scientific journals.

 

So yes, in the case of climate change, the STRONG correlation between Global Temperatures and CO2 holds up under scrutiny and makes a much stronger case for causation.

 

In the case of the Strong correlation between car ownership and gun violence: Because most of the population owns a car a person who commits a violent act with a gun is likely to own a car does not make a strong case for causation.

 

Do you see the difference now you dumb piece of ****.

 

God, I almost spit my coffee out of my mouth when I read what I think was supposed to be your "gotcha" post.

 

You spent 2+ pages arguing against yourself Captain Straw Man.

 

"Pier review?" Is that what you do when you have oceans of data to correlate.

 

And again...you're confusing correlation and causation. And you obviously don't know what "correlation" even is. It doesn't indicate causation, it indicates DEPENDENCE. Which is why your original global warming statement was nonsense - dependence isn't causation, but you're still treating it as though it is, on the basis of "Well, it's really, really strong". I'm guessing your degree didn't involve any sort of oral defense of a thesis, did it? Because you would have flunked it, post-haste (unless your perfessers were as dumb as you are - not unlikely, I'd wager).

 

And AGAIN...you completely misread what I said about car ownership and gun violence. Car ownership correlates with gun violence more strongly than gun ownership correlates with gun violence. Read it again. Read all the words. Then read them again until you understand. Then assume you don't (because you probably still won't), and read them again.

[/dev/null]

"Pier review?" Is that what you do when you have oceans of data to correlate.

 

Pier review is when your work agrees with Groupthink so you can go on Piers Morgan and be heralded a genius. Or if your work contradicts the Orthodoxy, Piers Morgan will go on TV and brand you a Heretic

[Bigfatbillsfan]

"Pier review?" Is that what you do when you have oceans of data to correlate.

 

And again...you're confusing correlation and causation. And you obviously don't know what "correlation" even is. It doesn't indicate causation, it indicates DEPENDENCE. Which is why your original global warming statement was nonsense - dependence isn't causation, but you're still treating it as though it is, on the basis of "Well, it's really, really strong". I'm guessing your degree didn't involve any sort of oral defense of a thesis, did it? Because you would have flunked it, post-haste (unless your perfessers were as dumb as you are - not unlikely, I'd wager).

 

And AGAIN...you completely misread what I said about car ownership and gun violence. Car ownership correlates with gun violence more strongly than gun ownership correlates with gun violence. Read it again. Read all the words. Then read them again until you understand. Then assume you don't (because you probably still won't), and read them again.

 

What?

 

Ok, either you're mentally retarded, very confused, or just trolling at this point.

 

Dependence can be used as a subcategory when mapping data. When you have two correlating variables the end game of the data mapping to to find causation, or lack there of. Now you're just making **** up.

 

And as far as pier review: When you have oceans of data you map it, analyze it, and if you feel there is a correlative relationship that a result of causation you would publish your study and THEN it is turned out for peir review.

 

While it's been great watching you try to bull **** your way thru this thread, I have to return to the real world now. But I have to offer you a heart felt congratulations. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone beat the **** out of their own ego.

 

See ya later Captain Straw Man...

[3rdnlng]

What?

 

Ok, either you're mentally retarded, very confused, or just trolling at this point.

 

Dependence can be used as a subcategory when mapping data. When you have two correlating variables the end game of the data mapping to to find causation, or lack there of. Now you're just making **** up.

 

And as far as pier review: When you have oceans of data you map it, analyze it, and if you feel there is a correlative relationship that a result of causation you would publish your study and THEN it is turned out for peir review.

 

While it's been great watching you try to bull **** your way thru this thread, I have to return to the real world now. But I have to offer you a heart felt congratulations. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone beat the **** out of their own ego.

 

See ya later Captain Straw Man...

 

Feel?

[DC Tom]

What?

 

Ok, either you're mentally retarded, very confused, or just trolling at this point.

 

Dependence can be used as a subcategory when mapping data. When you have two correlating variables the end game of the data mapping to to find causation, or lack there of. Now you're just making **** up.

 

And as far as pier review: When you have oceans of data you map it, analyze it, and if you feel there is a correlative relationship that a result of causation you would publish your study and THEN it is turned out for peir review.

 

While it's been great watching you try to bull **** your way thru this thread, I have to return to the real world now. But I have to offer you a heart felt congratulations. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone beat the **** out of their own ego.

 

See ya later Captain Straw Man...

 

"PEER" review, you freakin' mongoloid.

[3rdnlng]

"PEER" review, you freakin' mongoloid.

 

Now I'm confused. Isn't BFBF inspecting piers for the Army Corp of Engineers because he has a sociology degree?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

"PEER" review, you freakin' mongoloid.

 

So now we're going to cling to misspelled words and typos because we don't have an argument? Please, by all means do. I don't mind having my spelling corrected, it's not that good. But please don't try to use it in place of your argument that isn't.

Oh, and since we're back on to typos and misspellings I should tell you that freakin' isn't word.

[meazza]

So now we're going to cling to misspelled words and typos because we don't have an argument? Please, by all means do. I don't mind having my spelling corrected, it's not that good. But please don't try to use it in place of your argument that isn't.

Oh, and since we're back on to typos and misspellings I should tell you that freakin' isn't word.

 

Tell that to Jack Nicholson.

[3rdnlng]

So now we're going to cling to misspelled words and typos because we don't have an argument? Please, by all means do. I don't mind having my spelling corrected, it's not that good. But please don't try to use it in place of your argument that isn't.

Oh, and since we're back on to typos and misspellings I should tell you that freakin' isn't word.

 

freakin' isn't a word. How embarrassing for you. Did ya see that little thing after the "n" in freakin? Do you think that maybe it means something? Face it, you are really not very good at this game.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

freakin' isn't a word. How embarrassing for you. Did ya see that little thing after the "n" in freakin? Do you think that maybe it means something? Face it, you are really not very good at this game.

 

What game is that? I didn't know we were playing a game. And no, putting a ' after freakin doesn't make it a word.

[OCinBuffalo]

Still waiting...for an assertion that has been now proven to be false...to be defended, orally, in written form, anally? Yes, I want something, even if it is extracted anally, that explains why CO2 emissions soar, and temps are flat.

 

Btw, if accurate, that means there isn't even a correlation, never mind a causation, between these things.

 

What happens when the models fail? Why is the DATA (isn't science supposed to be about data?) showing us that they most likely will?

 

One thing I know for sure? This board is going to be a very fun place to be in 2 years.

[3rdnlng]

Still waiting...for an assertion that has been now proven to be false...to be defended, orally, in written form, anally? Yes, I want something, even if it is extracted anally, that explains why CO2 emissions soar, and temps are flat.

 

Btw, if accurate, that means there isn't even a correlation, never mind a causation, between these things.

 

What happens when the models fail? Why is the DATA (isn't science supposed to be about data?) showing us that they most likely will?

 

One thing I know for sure? This board is going to be a very fun place to be in 2 years.

 

Take it easy on BFBF, he "feels" that he knows and understands science.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Take it easy on BFBF, he "feels" that he knows and understands science.

 

Am I going to have to take the added step of posting a link to a definition of the work feel to spoon feed your sorry ass as to what it means?

[OCinBuffalo]

Am I going to have to take the added step of posting a link to a definition of the work feel to spoon feed your sorry ass as to what it means?

How about you quit playing the victim and/or mucking about with the distractions, and address the question, about the substance of this thread, that has been put to you 4 times?

 

How do you explain the data showing not-warming? We'll get to why, and what could be the reason, or, we will get to who's been lying, and why, and how this could have happened, but not before we acknowledge that the DATA doesn't support the(your?) assertion.