• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:56
CEST 09:56
KST 16:56
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202562RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension5
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Server Blocker Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Simple editing of Brood War save files? (.mlx) BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 651 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6787

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6785 6786 6787 6788 6789 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8982 Posts
February 07 2017 17:39 GMT
#135721
US education now rightfully reflects the direction this country is headed. Shit.
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
February 07 2017 17:39 GMT
#135722
On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education.


The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
February 07 2017 17:41 GMT
#135723
On February 08 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education.


The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions.


That Teacher Unions want DeVos confirmed?
Logo
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-07 17:42:59
February 07 2017 17:41 GMT
#135724
On February 08 2017 02:35 eviltomahawk wrote:
Betsy DeVos confirmed as secretary of education after a 51-50 vote in the Senate with Pence voting as a tiebreaker.


Hooray for lawmakers now realizing they can just claim everyone calling them and saying something they don't like is a shill or paid by Soros rather than their constituents since it worked out for Trump.

The one small reassuring factor is that an incompetent unqualified lobbyist who hires people to answer job interview questions will probably be less effective at dismantling something than a competent qualified lobbyist would be.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
February 07 2017 17:42 GMT
#135725
On February 08 2017 02:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 02:35 eviltomahawk wrote:
Betsy DeVos confirmed as secretary of education after a 51-50 vote in the Senate with Pence voting as a tiebreaker.


Hooray for lawmakers now realizing they can just claim everyone calling them and saying something they don't like is a shill or paid by Soros rather than their constituents since it worked out for Trump.


That's alright when the next election comes around and all those people run basically unopposed the voters will really show them what's what.
Logo
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
February 07 2017 17:43 GMT
#135726
On February 08 2017 02:41 Logo wrote:
That Teacher Unions want DeVos confirmed?


No, that Democrats are party-line against DeVos in solidarity with the unions.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-07 17:52:12
February 07 2017 17:45 GMT
#135727
On February 08 2017 02:43 Buckyman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 02:41 Logo wrote:
That Teacher Unions want DeVos confirmed?


No, that Democrats are party-line against DeVos in solidarity with the unions.


No... Well maybe that's a bit of it, but they're also party line against DeVos because she's terrible and totally unqualified and their offices have probably been flooded with anti-DeVos callers.

Voting no in unison on most of the other picks would be at best symbolic as it's pretty clear the republicans would vote the party for them. DeVos was the one that should have been so unambiguously bad as to have actually gotten rejected.

To put it in perspective this is the only nominee where a Republican other than Rand Paul voted No. And if you know Rand Paul it's not surprising he'd vote against the party in some cases.
Logo
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44311 Posts
February 07 2017 17:48 GMT
#135728
On February 08 2017 02:35 eviltomahawk wrote:
Betsy DeVos confirmed as secretary of education after a 51-50 vote in the Senate with Pence voting as a tiebreaker.


Yup. Absolutely disappointing. This is a huge blow to American education, as if we needed any more problems with our system.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
February 07 2017 17:50 GMT
#135729
On February 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 01:03 Doodsmack wrote:
On February 08 2017 00:47 Danglars wrote:
On February 08 2017 00:35 Doodsmack wrote:
On February 07 2017 17:01 Danglars wrote:
On February 07 2017 15:16 ChristianS wrote:
On February 07 2017 14:21 Danglars wrote:
On February 07 2017 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
seems like a cranky dissent on hardware calibration checks

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

as long as the satellites used were not broken during the duration of the study, a situation that is true if they are not broken as of now, the data should be good

Are technica penning about as slanted a reply as Daily Mail in its initial write up, from scare-quoting the whistleblower on down. I congratulate Lamar Smith for his efforts on the matter. The pause quickly went from being explained away (even in this thread, that models accounted for a long halt) to there never having been a pause at all many years after the fact. That's a big enough deal in my opinion to look at. If this is science fact, there should be transparency on outside analysis, not claiming fishing expeditions and the like.

Fact is, Trump's EPA pick is highly critical of how the issue has been handled governmentally up until now. The next four years will almost certainly have a doubter as head of the environmental protection agency. So everyone best get ready to convince rather than shut down debate. Especially talking from an economic perspective, because Perry Smith and Tillerson won't be crusaders on the issue.

I don't think I've ever seen that debate be productive. The opposing side is denialist at its root - the whole anti-environmentalist movement is essentially bound together by disbelief of the scientific consensus, rather than belief in some alternative hypothesis which can be proven or disproven. What are the alternative explanations for the data? Sun cycles? Wobble in Earth's orbit? God toying with us? They're all either already disproven or unfalsifiable non-explanations.

So instead of pushing another hypothesis the denialists prefer to watch the climate scientists and heckle when something goes differently than expected. Of course none of the unexpected developments actually disprove the consensus like they seem to think; it's like flat earthers celebrating because someone miscalculated the radius of the Earth. The evidence isn't actually more in their favor just because someone's climate model mispredicted something, but they figure if they sow enough doubt and mistrust about the science in general (notably without any effort to distinguish between the more speculative predictions and the more ironclad discoveries), they can convince an ill-informed public thru shouldn't trust anything the scientists say, regardless of evidence, no matter how emphatically they state their discovery. That "debate" has never been productive, at least not that I've seen.

Well have fun the next four years. Denialist is coming to be the slur with no substance. If scientists cannot practice science with examination at this stage, they invite criticism and deserve incredulity. It's entirely the style of argumentation without consideration that tries to turn whistleblowers into pariahs and activists into saints. The latest was Shrodinger's Climate Pause: it's an explainable pause and a data artifact at the same time, and the field is so advanced it takes a decade of explaining away the data before the data suddenly changes to not need an explanation.

Wake up and smell what reeks. A modern field with accepted explanations shouldn't need this level of CYA and blaming-the-whistleblower. Keep this up and the environment/climate change might drop to poll from 12th most pressing issue facing the nation to 13th-15th to 18th and below.


By not offering an actual alternative explanation or theory regarding whether man made warming has occurred, you haven't actually moved the debate forward.

Who said anything about moving the debate forward?
You've moved the debate backward, and lost an election. If you have trouble seeing my 'ample cause for doubt' argument in the context of the links, try reading it again. If you're unfamiliar with climate skeptic arguments, I suggest using google.


Well you still haven't offered an alternative explanation. You can complain about liberals and the media, and that's fine, but your assertion about what policy should be should incorporate an alternative explanation. When you say "go look elsewhere" it doesn't seem like a very well supported viewpoint.

You haven't understood a single word, or you're asking the wrong questions, or just being a troll trying to be fed. What part of "x y, and z show these troubling factors about the modern climate change debate" do you not understand? If I wanted to take up ChristianS's assertion about how the skeptics are bound together and why that matters, I would've responded on that point. I see no reason to continue expanding the topic if the basis of whistle-blowing is irrationally diminished and no allowance is given to how scientists have been breeding their own distrust.


That's fine you want to argue about things other than the alternative explanations, but you're making a policy judgment and that really should include an alternative explanation. But you have asserted that a policy judgment can be based only on the treatment of some whistleblowers and dissenters.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17983 Posts
February 07 2017 17:53 GMT
#135730
On February 08 2017 02:27 Buckyman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
I have not yet seen a case where a university protected someone knowingly doing bad science, or a journal didn't retract a paper after evidence it was falsified/fudged. So please point me to where the "scientific community" has acted corruptly, and not some very tiny minority of bad individuals.


A quick search turned up this letter and the response, eventually concluding here.

Summary: Amateur climate scientist Steve McIntyre asks tier one journal Science to enforce their rules on data availability by leaning on several authors to provide the raw data that their papers used (among other information). Science enforces it in 2/6 (eventually 3/6) cases.

The Science articles involving the withheld data remain widely cited.


This is a general problem in science: data sets. Or in my own field: source code (and data sets). I agree that it's not neat at all. I disagree that it is unscrupulous. There are a number of reasons not to publish data sets:

1) They are expensive to curate, and the university (or group) treats it as proprietary.
2) They are messy. Throwing an unintelligible CSV on a server does nobody any good, and it takes a significant amount of effort (time, aka money) to clean them up. This is work that needs to be done, but nobody wants to do it, so it doesn't get done, and the dataset languishes on some PhD student's harddrive until he finishes, his harddrive gets backed up and now it languishes in cold storage somewhere. If asked, the professor has no clue anymore where it is.
3) Technological knowhow is lacking. I work with education scientists. If I were to tell them they need to publish their dataset in a permanent storage online, they would have no clue what I was talking about. I don't know how much Science helps with groups publishing their data, but if it isn't much, then compound this with point (2) and the resistance to publishing the dataset is big. Moreover, a dataset may be (very) large, and Dropbox no longer works as a solution. You now need permanent hosting. Most universities are catching on and creating repositories, but not all, and even if your university does, it may not be well-known, well-documented how to get your data there, etc.
4) Anonymization issues (not a problem with climate data, but included for completeness). It is a PITA to anonymize a data set for full publication, and sometimes it's not even really possible.

These are not valid excuses, and the data absolutely should be published. In my opinion, Science (and other journals that have an open data policy) need to be stricter, as do universities and research institutes. On the upside, I believe this climate is gradually improving. In recent project proposals, I have had to include a section on data curation: if data/code is generated as part of the project, what will happen to it, etc. I have not yet seen what happens if you violate that section, but given how projects are audited, eventually someone somewhere will get around to question that, and if you haven't followed your own protocol (and didn't justify your deviation somewhere in the project report), will probably have to return (part of) the project money... just as any other breach of project rules require that.

But data is a problematic issue right now... and Science probably is quite relaxed with that rule specifically because data is such a difficult subject to deal with. It's not just climate science. Pharmaceuticals are a lot worse (because data collection is expensive, and treated as proprietary more often than not). And my own field (AI) is far from perfect, despite everybody being a computer scientists (so reasons 2 and 3 above shouldn't really apply).
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11507 Posts
February 07 2017 17:54 GMT
#135731
On February 08 2017 02:34 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 00:39 Simberto wrote:
On February 08 2017 00:13 Sermokala wrote:
On February 08 2017 00:06 Velr wrote:
On February 07 2017 23:57 Sermokala wrote:

I'd think creationists would be given more credibility scientifically then deniers.


Thats because "creationism" is a very creative field, its actually some form of literature/philosophy/fiction :p.
You don't "disregard" Facts, you just create new ones up that work "together" with the actual Facts. Its "extra-special-creative-Facts" on top of "Facts".


Denial is just "alternative Facts".

But still you can end up with a genuine shrug from someone who doesn't agree with creationists when you are both on the same page of facts. The big bang and dark matter are as faith based explination as saying a mythical god caused it and does it.


That is because dark matter and the big bang are not "done science". You can use telescopes to look pretty far into the past, but once you get to about 13.3 billions of years ago, the universe is so full of stuff that you can't actually look through it anymore, so you can't look further back than that. You can, however, use the data you have from the points in time that you can see, and especially redshift data, to make a model that fits the stuff we can observe. And that model leads to a big bang.

Dark matter and Dark energy are similarly weird concepts that are used to make the things we observe fit to the laws of nature that we already know. Galaxies rotate in a way that can only be explained if there is a lot of matter that we can not observe. We don't know what that stuff is, but at this point, either our understanding of gravity is a bit off or there is stuff we can't see in space. A lot of that stuff. Both can be correct, but since no one has come up with a better theory of gravity that explains all the stuff we currently know, we now work of the assumption that there is this nebulous dark matter, and try to figure out what that stuff actually is.

Dark energy is something that is necessary to explain why the universe expands in the way we can observe it expanding. We have even less of an idea about it than about dark matter, but once again we either have dark energy, or something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of how the expansion of space itself works. Since so far noone has had a better theory about how space expands, that explains both the stuff we know AND the effects currently attributed to dark energy, we try to figure out what that dark energy could be.

But these things are all far from scientific fact, and thus they don't really require faith. In fact, faith is counterproductive. They represent problems that we are in the process of trying to figure out.

We have models that explain the things that we can observe. Of course you can always explain everything with "god does it because god wants to do it". But that is not a very productive point of view, as there is no additional knowledge to be gained from it, nor can predictions be made using it. It is a completely nonfalsifiable theory, and thus we don't actually gain anything from it. Meanwhile, we gain a lot from trying to figure out what dark matter is, or if there is none, what else has the effect of galaxies not rotating in a way that is consistent to there only being the visible matter.

Your using a ton of words that don't amount to much. Dark matter and dark energy are not real things. They're just there beacuse it's the only way to make the models work but that's where they end. Adding made up concepts doesn't allow you to backtrack and come up with a new theory now that the model works. I don't see how beliving is non productive unless you apply that there is no need to figure out the how and the search for the how is compatible with both sides.

This is the Crux of my argument beacuse there is enough of a leap between faith in a creator and the belief in the opposite. There is an arguable gap in our current science that doesn't exist in global warming. I'm not interested in a faith conversation but that danglars can defend or argue for global warming deniers is worse then creationism debaters.

Beacuse it's anti Vax level I guess I should have gone.


I am not quite certain what you want to say with the bolded part.

We have a pretty good theory of gravity that explains the motions of stellar objects very well. However, in some cases (rotation speeds of galaxies are not what they should be according to the model), it does not. Now, you have to either introduce a concept that allows the working theory to still work under those circumstances, or you have to come up with a new theory that explains both the already known motions AND the weirdness in those cases.

The current working theory is that there is massive stuff that we can't observe. This is not an iron-clad thing that we are sure exists, but something that would explain what we observe. Now comes the scientific process. We try to either find that stuff and prove that it exists in some other way, OR we try to find a new theory of gravitation that also explains those effects. Both are things that people try. At some point, we will either have a new theory of gravity, proof that dark matter exists, or proof that it does not exists and that we need a new theory. We are currently in the phase where that is getting investigated. I am not sure how you can be so ironclad about your opinion that dark matter is not a real thing when it is very much a thing that is debated currently.

Dark energy is even weirder, but basically the problem is the same. We have a model that explains most of what we observe, but there are some factors that are off. Dark energy is a concept that is proposed to fix that. Once again, we are in the realm of "currently in development" science. The current theory does not have to be correct, but it also does not have to be incorrect, and currently it is the best theory we have. People are trying to come up with better theories, or try to figure out what that dark energy actually is.

You seem to fail to realize that there is a difference in science that is currently ongoing, and science that has been settled for a long period of time.
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-07 18:06:22
February 07 2017 17:57 GMT
#135732
On February 08 2017 02:15 ChristianS wrote:
Agreed that lumping everyone together under that heading is inelegant, but one can hardly be asked to anticipate and respond to every possible hypothesis the denialists might or might not believe. Denialists usually don't put forward alternate hypotheses, because there aren't really any good ones. Even with the benefit of hindsight they can't offer better explanations of the facts than the scientific consensus. So instead they point to holes at the fringe where scientists can't always predict the evidence perfectly, and use it as an excuse to reject large swaths of scientific fact without considering the merits. If people want us to consider their own explanation of the facts they should put it forward, until then they're just heckling.


Is "the data isn't good enough to support any hypothesis for a single cause of warming, therefore we should not accept the CO2 hypothesis and can't prove any alternative hypothesis" an invalid claim on its face?

(E): corrected a terminology error
biology]major
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2253 Posts
February 07 2017 17:59 GMT
#135733
Not too sure what Devos is all about, but failing to get all the republican votes is hilarious. I didn't really have any problems with the other cabinet picks, but I wouldn't have minded her not going through. Any source on her agenda?
Question.?
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-07 18:00:18
February 07 2017 17:59 GMT
#135734
On February 08 2017 02:57 Buckyman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 02:15 ChristianS wrote:
Agreed that lumping everyone together under that heading is inelegant, but one can hardly be asked to anticipate and respond to every possible hypothesis the denialists might or might not believe. Denialists usually don't put forward alternate hypotheses, because there aren't really any good ones. Even with the benefit of hindsight they can't offer better explanations of the facts than the scientific consensus. So instead they point to holes at the fringe where scientists can't always predict the evidence perfectly, and use it as an excuse to reject large swaths of scientific fact without considering the merits. If people want us to consider their own explanation of the facts they should put it forward, until then they're just heckling.


Is "the data isn't good enough to support any hypothesis for a single cause of warming, therefore we should reject the CO2 hypothesis and can't prove any alternative hypothesis" an invalid claim on its face?

yes, because data insufficiency does not necessarily precipitate the rejection of a related hypothesis, particularly in areas of science as complex as climate.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8982 Posts
February 07 2017 18:00 GMT
#135735
On February 08 2017 02:59 biology]major wrote:
Not too sure what Devos is all about, but failing to get all the republican votes is hilarious. I didn't really have any problems with the other cabinet picks, but I wouldn't have minded her not going through. Any source on her agenda?

You can find it on most websites. I prefer NPR over most though.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
February 07 2017 18:00 GMT
#135736
Apparently Pence is the first VP in history to cast a tiebreaker on a cabinet nomination.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
February 07 2017 18:03 GMT
#135737
President Trump on Tuesday offered to go after a Texas state senator who was the target of complaints from a local sheriff.

During a White House meeting, Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson told the president about a lawmaker who was offering asset forfeiture legislation he believes would aid Mexican drug cartels.

“Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career," Trump offered.


The Hill
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
February 07 2017 18:04 GMT
#135738
On February 08 2017 02:31 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:
On February 08 2017 01:03 Doodsmack wrote:
On February 08 2017 00:47 Danglars wrote:
On February 08 2017 00:35 Doodsmack wrote:
On February 07 2017 17:01 Danglars wrote:
On February 07 2017 15:16 ChristianS wrote:
On February 07 2017 14:21 Danglars wrote:
On February 07 2017 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
seems like a cranky dissent on hardware calibration checks

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

as long as the satellites used were not broken during the duration of the study, a situation that is true if they are not broken as of now, the data should be good

Are technica penning about as slanted a reply as Daily Mail in its initial write up, from scare-quoting the whistleblower on down. I congratulate Lamar Smith for his efforts on the matter. The pause quickly went from being explained away (even in this thread, that models accounted for a long halt) to there never having been a pause at all many years after the fact. That's a big enough deal in my opinion to look at. If this is science fact, there should be transparency on outside analysis, not claiming fishing expeditions and the like.

Fact is, Trump's EPA pick is highly critical of how the issue has been handled governmentally up until now. The next four years will almost certainly have a doubter as head of the environmental protection agency. So everyone best get ready to convince rather than shut down debate. Especially talking from an economic perspective, because Perry Smith and Tillerson won't be crusaders on the issue.

I don't think I've ever seen that debate be productive. The opposing side is denialist at its root - the whole anti-environmentalist movement is essentially bound together by disbelief of the scientific consensus, rather than belief in some alternative hypothesis which can be proven or disproven. What are the alternative explanations for the data? Sun cycles? Wobble in Earth's orbit? God toying with us? They're all either already disproven or unfalsifiable non-explanations.

So instead of pushing another hypothesis the denialists prefer to watch the climate scientists and heckle when something goes differently than expected. Of course none of the unexpected developments actually disprove the consensus like they seem to think; it's like flat earthers celebrating because someone miscalculated the radius of the Earth. The evidence isn't actually more in their favor just because someone's climate model mispredicted something, but they figure if they sow enough doubt and mistrust about the science in general (notably without any effort to distinguish between the more speculative predictions and the more ironclad discoveries), they can convince an ill-informed public thru shouldn't trust anything the scientists say, regardless of evidence, no matter how emphatically they state their discovery. That "debate" has never been productive, at least not that I've seen.

Well have fun the next four years. Denialist is coming to be the slur with no substance. If scientists cannot practice science with examination at this stage, they invite criticism and deserve incredulity. It's entirely the style of argumentation without consideration that tries to turn whistleblowers into pariahs and activists into saints. The latest was Shrodinger's Climate Pause: it's an explainable pause and a data artifact at the same time, and the field is so advanced it takes a decade of explaining away the data before the data suddenly changes to not need an explanation.

Wake up and smell what reeks. A modern field with accepted explanations shouldn't need this level of CYA and blaming-the-whistleblower. Keep this up and the environment/climate change might drop to poll from 12th most pressing issue facing the nation to 13th-15th to 18th and below.


By not offering an actual alternative explanation or theory regarding whether man made warming has occurred, you haven't actually moved the debate forward.

Who said anything about moving the debate forward?
You've moved the debate backward, and lost an election. If you have trouble seeing my 'ample cause for doubt' argument in the context of the links, try reading it again. If you're unfamiliar with climate skeptic arguments, I suggest using google.


Well you still haven't offered an alternative explanation. You can complain about liberals and the media, and that's fine, but your assertion about what policy should be should incorporate an alternative explanation. When you say "go look elsewhere" it doesn't seem like a very well supported viewpoint.

You haven't understood a single word, or you're asking the wrong questions, or just being a troll trying to be fed. What part of "x y, and z show these troubling factors about the modern climate change debate" do you not understand? If I wanted to take up ChristianS's assertion about how the skeptics are bound together and why that matters, I would've responded on that point. I see no reason to continue expanding the topic if the basis of whistle-blowing is irrationally diminished and no allowance is given to how scientists have been breeding their own distrust.


Regarding the whistleblowing, this is the relevant part:
Show nested quote +
Bates alleges that NOAA's Tom Karl and the rest of the team behind the paper failed to adequately follow NOAA’s internal processes for archiving their data and stress-testing the updated databases they used.


I don't know how tech savvy you are, but unless it afterwards turns out that there was actually something wrong with their data, this is entirely irrelevant. They *should* have followed protocol. The protocol is there to ensure data is correct before publication. They rushed it. It's not a great precedent, and should really not happen.

But unless rushing a paper leads to false results/conclusions, it is not evidence of anything other than that proper protocol wasn't followed... and posterior follow-up research of the data has not shown any discrepancies in it, so the former seems very unlikely.

Given the internal strife over this protocol in the first place (obviously this is all NOAA dirty laundry here, so what exactly Bates' reasons for whistleblowing are, we don't know), it seems completely appropriate to diminish the claim. Science should (and undoubtedly does) follow up on this and there will undoubtedly be an audit in NOAA to doublecheck the data, but there doesn't seem any reason at all so far to doubt its veracity.

I hope it's done in the open, if necessary with the Smith investigation compelling it, to verify the data. Not toying with it but showing the bases for instrumental correction (and the like). I'm bringing up stories here not to rehash but to try to see how people respond to allegations of data tampering, the accusation being the author was "insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation." He claims the NOAA "put a thumb on the scale."

If the only takeaway is 'ho hum it doesn't change the consensus and denialists still aren't open to being proved wrong in their skepticism of AGW," then I'll check back in another few months or as current events dictate.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-07 18:18:17
February 07 2017 18:13 GMT
#135739
On February 08 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education.


The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions.

The two Republicans which defected had received thousands of dollars from teachers unions. Under-reported story.

I should add that Devos is a school choice advocate, and successful changes on that front would necessarily weaken the power and influence of teaher's unions.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
February 07 2017 18:17 GMT
#135740
DeVos gave numerous senators voting on her confirmation thousands of dollars. Pat Toomey called DeVos "a great pick" but did not mention that he received over sixty thousand dollars directly from her. Underreported story.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Prev 1 6785 6786 6787 6788 6789 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 4m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 220
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4159
Mind 663
Larva 411
firebathero 409
ToSsGirL 145
Free 97
Dewaltoss 95
Zeus 76
ivOry 6
Movie 5
Dota 2
XcaliburYe401
League of Legends
JimRising 648
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor149
Other Games
summit1g4536
Fuzer 277
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick918
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH305
• LUISG 25
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2174
Other Games
• Scarra1703
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
2h 4m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6h 4m
CSO Cup
8h 4m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
10h 4m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 1h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 6h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 10h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.