Tippaporn

Just more parroting. None of this information is yours. You receive it and then parrot it. Nothing more. The issue requires thought, Danderman123. It requires constant questioning. But in your world the act of questioning is transformed into engaging in conspiracy theory. To you they are one and the same. And the term conspiracy theory is simply a ruse and a tool to shame people into NOT questioning. And merely accepting what they are told. No thought is required as the thoughts are provided you by others. Fortunately the world is filled with free thinkers and people who question.

And they were all staying in local hostels.

What difference does that make, Danderman123? You're of the same cloth so you should know that you folks will never, ever stop pushing it. If it doesn't get passed in it's current form today it will again be proposed in similar form . . . and again and again and again until they finally succeed. You really need to take the course "How The World Works 101" so you can quit feigning that you don't understand it.

TBL, it's what these people do. They make things up. They have no regard for truth nor a desire for honest debate. Outright deception and fraud is part of their toolkit.

What a joke of a request. Any data disproving your premises for climate change will only get "debunked" by you and the other climate change believer cohorts. The truth of the matter is, Danderman123, is that your request, and others similar requests, will never be accepted by you. Never as in N-E-V-E-R. So why do even ask when you know in advance you'll just poo-poo it? Due to the obvious truth above I've told you guys before, you're just playing a game here. But do carry on with the utter nonsense.

Here's some more recent insanity in the push for Green, this time from Germany. German lawmakers pass heating law that divided government German lawmakers in the lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, voted on Friday in favor of a controversial law aimed at phasing out oil and gas heating systems. In principle, newly installed heating systems in old and new buildings should be powered by at least 65% renewable energy. According to a survey commissioned by the liberal newspaper Die Zeit, as many as 70% of Germans reject compulsory regulations on banning heating fired by oil or gas or paying for obligatory replacements of their heating systems. These idiots are sealing their political doom. Take note some of you posters. By and large the people don't like it, are extremely p!ssed, and the amount of anger which is building on a daily basis is eventually not going to be contained. You folks are the spearhead of what is destined to become an awesome explosion of energy (pun intended) as the dam bursts. At the same time, the government's approval ratings are steadily declining, while the popularity of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) grows further. Lots and lots of money involved as entire new industries are created to service and make possible this Green transformations. The billionaire class is well poised to further enrich themselves greatly as they invest in all of these new industries. Since governments are the ones creating these new policies, and will be enforcing them, the billionaire class is guaranteed a safe investment. For as long as it lasts, in any case, for nothing is forever.

"Some low information types . . ." The irony of calling others "low information types" as you folks are renowned for closing your eyes and plugging your ears to any information which would destroy your sacred religious beliefs.

Lackluster? You people have no idea of the tyrannical freedom destroying diktats placing undue burdens on ordinary people which your climate change nonsense is ushering in. RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: No heat pump? Put your thermals on, you're nicked Under new legislation, which sailed through its third reading in the Commons this week, homeowners and landlords whose properties don't meet Net Zero targets could be fined £15,000 and jailed for up to a year. Compulsory installation of fridges, washing machines, immersion heaters and so on, all connected to the internet, will allow the Government and the energy companies to monitor electricity consumption and switch off your supply if they think you're using too much. Take a read of some of the insane and twisted logic which is being accepted as valid these days (lots of the same used here on this thread, too): Some of the more bonkers MPs even thought these draconian proposals didn't go far enough. Brighton's Green MP Caroline 'Here We Go Looby' Lucas called for an immediate end to all gas and oil exploration on the bizarre grounds that this would free us from dependence on Vlad Putin? Tory MPs warn pursuit of ‘cultish’ eco-policies could see customers paying more On the plans that could see property owners who fail to comply with new energy efficiency rules facing prison, he [Craig Mackinlay] said: “I do feel that when we create criminal penalties in this place, it is a duty that it is discussed properly that we put our fellow citizens potentially in prison for 12 months for an unknown offence of the future relating to net zero. “We actually allow freedoms, we allow the market to decide and this Bill goes in the wrong direction.” I can just imagine what freedoms a climate emergency would trample over. Maybe climate change cultists don't mind the loss of their freedoms but most people don't. Perhaps some of you folks will change your tune once the loss of freedoms starts affecting you personally. Well, come to think of it lots of people didn't mind during the Covid lock downs - and actually relished in the virtue signalling - so I wouldn't be surprised that some of you wouldn't just continue being good little soldiers.

The in-your-face hypocrisy abounds, doesn't it? And yet so many pretend to be oblivious to it. if it threatens the narrative it gets dismissed, ignored, debunked, spun, etc., etc., etc. To their detriment it really is a very limited playbook of tactics and after awhile the constant repetition does begin to bring clarity as to what's really going on. It gets to where it's impossible to ignore. I find it fascinating that more than a few posters here are able to continue ignoring all the red flags and their accompanying alarm bells. Maybe they have cotton stuffed in their ears.

Gee, the post you replied to has no mention of the 17 page paper I cited earlier. But you did refuse to answer a simple question for the third time. Again you're being disingenuous because it's not at all a lack of patience on your part. It's because I've raised so many issues which you cannot contend with in an honest fashion. So in typical fashion of someone who cannot answer questions you just flat out refuse, make some plausible but bogus excuse for doing so, and then step away. I've seen politicians do it hundreds of times. You're no different. You truly do believe you're fooling people, eh?

Am I going to have another Bkk Brian moment, only this time with you? Is the old saying, third time's the charm, going to play out with you. Or will you be suffering from memory loss as well? Well? Is your entire climate change position built upon trusting what you've been told, which includes the "science?" Because let's face it, you have no first hand knowledge of any of it. ". . . real science." What is real science, placeholder? The science that East Anglia produced to gin up that global warming was real? It's a simple point, placeholder. You trust what you're told without the slightest questioning or without investigating all of the evidence and theories yourself. You've accepted the "science" which has been explained to you as God's word. Sure, the "science" you've been fed appears sensical and comes with it's own logic and evidence. If you can trust the evidence. We don't trust the "science" as science has been exposed, especially in recent years on a number of different issues, for corrupt practices. Sorry, dude, we ain't whitewashing like you are. And just one last point. "You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science." I've never made such a claim. Ever. Again you're making things up out of whole cloth and accusing me of whatever fantasies you create. Which is something I've been harping on throughout this thread. The outright deceptive tactics used by the climate believers. If you've gotta make things up and make use of a lot of logical fallacies in your arguments then why would anyone trust what you say? I had the thought earlier to do a short recap of all of these different tactics and entitle the recap "The Disingenuous Indicator." Kinda on par with WaPo's Pinocchio ratings. This one will just focus on all of the deceptive tactics used and create a comprehensive list of them.

I agree wholeheartedly except that it's much, much more than 3 million. Current estimates, I believe, are the same number of people inhabiting the Los Angeles metro area.

I find this interesting: "As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off." What is Thomas Kuhn suggesting here? That "group think" is operative within the science community? And not until the last of that group has died off can we move on to . . . to . . . a new generation of "group think?" That's something to consider, isn't it? "And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis." Would it have anything to do with the new "group think?" BTW, are there no older generation scientists who are ardent believers of climate change? If there are then doesn't that fact kinda play havoc with Kuhn's conclusion? Or perhaps there's more in play which would account for so many like-minded scientist on climate change. Tell me, placeholder, what happens to a scientist whose conclusions are counter to the conclusions of climate change scientists? Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn't Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled "Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled," the Co2 Coalition said in a statement. "According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was 'postponed,'" the statement added. Again, is it a matter of naiveté on your part that you would pretend that pressure to conform to the "consensus" scientists doesn't exist? This article rather sums it up nicely in a single sentence. The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool. Judgment Day: The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this. What is this? Mob rule? Blowing off contrary views ain't science. It's mob rule. And you're all for it!!

"I don't care whether or not you understand or approve of my post." I never thought you did. But I did give you a compliment. I do believe in giving credit when it is due, even when it's to an opponent. It's only fair. "Invoking machine learning as relevant was ridiculous." You're now feigning being "dumb as rocks" to make it appear that you don't at all understand that the article also covered predictions apart from ML. You're trying to pretend that it was only about ML. I provided you quotes twice now to show that to be true. It's the same tactic you used to "stay on target" that I'm engaging in conspiracy theory even when I state upfront that I don't believe it to be conspiracy theory. No matter to you. If you can't fight honestly then by all means scratch and claw and hit below the belt. I'm hip. Again, cherry picking what you respond to. You avoided answering the direct question. Like a good hack politician, if you can't answer a question then you don't. Aren't we all, you and I both, in a position where we have to rely on trust in 3rd parties?

So? Is that your justification for government subsidies?

Do you think someone like Bill Gates gets on the horn to individual scientists and pressures them to alter their research? Do you have any idea of how this dodgy and corrupt world works? Do you think that the likes of Mao, Hitler and Stalin no longer exist in the world? That Bill Gates is wonderful human being because he has a charitable foundation? Again, does the definition of naiveté fit you to a tee? What was Climategate? What did Climategate expose? Do you ever consider the implications and what it does to the credibility of science? Or how it affects peoples' trust in science? I don't want to hear about the so-called eight "independent" committees which more than less gave it all a pass. Climategate: Beyond Inquiry Panels Two British committees, one Dutch committee and a US Senate committee have investigated Climategate — the disclosure from emails that scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University sought to withhold data from and sabotage research publications of other scientists questioning the conventional wisdom on global warming. The first three committees gave CRU scientists and collaborators — including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and Kevin Trenberth — a slap on the wrist without calling them outright frauds. The Minority Staff Report of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, however, has accused the scientists of (a) obstructing release of damaging data and information, (b) manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions, (c) colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ‘consensus’, and (d) assuming activist roles to influence the political process. The Climategate Whitewash Continues Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” Last week “The Independent Climate Change E‑mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. As I said, no conspiracies. But then there are no coincidences, either. How convenient and highly coincidental that an "independent" committee to investigate a member of East Angiia was funded by East Anglia? Don't you question anything, placeholder? No alarm bells ever go off in your head? Do you just think to yourself, "Well that's odd but it doesn't mean anything." And just mosey on as if nothing had ever happened? This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others — one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Gee, it must be nice to investigate yourself and declare "nothing to see here, folks." Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding. Money not involved? According to you it's not. Why can't you see what others see? What closes your eyes to quite factual information? You see, placeholder, the difference between you, and some of the other posters here, and the climate change "deniers" is the issue of trust. You seem to believe that this is a rather idyllic world where tycoons and governments and major institutions are all the peoples' best friends. Their every word is to be implicitly trusted and if trust is not given due to obvious corruption then it's conspiracy theory. What a quaint, charming and sheltered world you must live in. It is beyond your comprehension that people see things in the world that you ignore, or that they have a different understanding of the way the world works due to what they see.

Governments shouldn't be in the business of subsidising anything, full stop.

Now that was an unusually cogent post, placeholder. I understand it perfectly and it's quite logical. Yet for people like you and me, those of us who are not privy to any of the raw data, or the actual source of the raw data, and can never validate it's true authenticity, we are left in a singular position. One of trust. Are you in disagreement here? I cannot conceive that you would not be as you are not a climatologist, you are not engaged in research, and you do not have access to the raw data or can validate it's authenticity yourself.

placeholder, I know you cherry picked and didn't address the point below from one of my previous posts. Will you do so now and tell us which past models were accurate, which were not, and why they were or were not accurate? I'm not looking for a copy and paste from some article. I'm assuming you've done your own research.

He has nothing.™

Oh please, Yellowtail, stop already with the logical analogies. placeholder had just "debunked" your analogy as a false equivalency. I should really down vote your post. <sarc>

You see no tie-ins whatsoever. No connections. Your science is completely insulated from money and politics. No outside pressure whatsoever. All scientists are operating with utter objectivity, no bias, utterly altruistic. Well, your scientists, to be sure. The scientists on the other side of the fence are completely driven by money and politics, are unduly pressured by outside interests, possess no objectivity and operate only with severe bias, and have sinister intentions of allowing the world to be destroyed despite knowing full well that they're wrong. Hi, I'm on earth. placeholder, can you direct me to where this alternate reality exists? I'd like to go because it seems an idyllic place to be. I want to be right all the time, too! "You got some evidence that there is some kind of massive conspiracy underwritten by certain billionaires to produce a vast web of falsified research?" misrepresentation - the act or state of being represented incorrectly, improperly, falsely, or unsatisfactorily Here you are purposely misrepresenting what I've said. I've stated unequivocally that there is no grand conspiracy yet you're insisting that that is what I believe as you are now asking me to produce evidence of a conspiracy.. Again, in this unknown, unbelievable world of yours private investment influencing, or even dictating governmental policies does not exist. Gvoernments have never, ever gone to war to protect private interests abroad. No, that just doesn't happen. I must be crazy to think thoughts like that. naiveté - the state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical I hope this definition does not describe you.

My original quote of the article: The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy: A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning However, previous authors have focused mainly on the other side of the issue—namely, the fact that “classical” statistical models optimized for accurate explanation tend to perform badly in prediction tasks (more on this later). My goal is to redress this imbalance, by explicitly discussing the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation. As I demonstrate below, the prediction-explanation fallacy can lead to distorted and misleading conclusions—not only about the results of a single analysis, but also about the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon under study. Here he is not addressing ML but very specifically "the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation." Uhm, difficulty understanding plain English? Now I had linked to a second article: The Fallacy of Forecasting in a Complex World Studying historical statistics can be incredibly useful when trying to explain what happened. But just identifying a trend in statistical data does not automatically translate into a forecast for the future. Statistics is an explanatory tool, not a predictive tool. If you try to bridge statistical data into a predictive model, you may find yourself drowning in a lake that is on average only 4 feet deep or burning to death in a building that is on average 75 degrees. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that you didn't read that, either. Will you "debunk" it or claim irrelevancy, too?

Deflecting to the totally unrelated point of "There's nothing in this article that questions the validity of the science." when the subject matter is strictly about scientific predictions. "The influence of these billionaires consists of what technologies they choose to invest in to mitigate climate change. A different matter entirely." Feigning to not understand politics and investment opportunities and the dynamics between the two!! And the crowd cheers uproarilously!

TOTAL DEFLECTION!! And the crowd cheers!!!