Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

I ran into the neighbor who was the other side of the incident in January where Hudson the wonder dog forewent the ample opportunity to kill his little dog in an unfortunate encounter. The couple of months that have passed, evidence of the winter, allowed for a friendly reconciliation, helped by how I spoke at the time with his wife to make sure everyone was okay and to apologize. I got to make my point to him that he needed to think through in advance how to deal with such encounters, and he got to apologize to Hudson several times for kicking her, which I'm sure she didn't even notice at the time, and she happily forgave him. The funny thing is that his dog no longer yaps at us from the house on our walks, and was completely silent from within during the conversation with his owner... I think his mistaken impression that he is mayor of the neighborhood has been corrected.

Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Siege Knight.
Links: Beauty and the Plague. Tearjerker warning. Thanks nin.
Punchable, hackable squidaliens to return in upcoming Independence Day sequel.
Stories: This Will Be Tim McCarver's Last Season At Fox. Can he take Joe with him?
Media: Hour Of Victory Is a Total Failure.
Terraria Trolls.
11 Signs You Suffer From Sleep Deprivation.
Follow-up: Global warming predictions prove accurate.

View
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

33. Re: Out of the Blue Apr 1, 2013, 07:13 Mr. Tact
 
Economists, psychiatrists, and now add meteorologists -- or whatever these guys call themselves. Science that isn't science. Why? Because they can't run experiments to test their theories.

If two sets of scientists look at data and come out with opposing interpretations how are us common folk supposed to figured out which is right? Sometimes I think the idea that "Ignorance is bliss" should be taken to heart much more often...
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Climate change BS Mar 31, 2013, 22:34 ledhead1969
 
Blue wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:07:
ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 01:05:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyp9cm5

Nature.com versus investors.com. Are you sure you have properly identified the party with an agenda here?

Ok, how about the Economist?

http://econ.st/XcFNIS

I don't care if Blue wants to post about global warming, just present a balanced view so people have more info to make up their minds.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Climate change BS Mar 30, 2013, 11:04 xXBatmanXx
 
ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 18:41:
Ok, how about this:

http://bit.ly/10g3KvR

open your minds you sheep.

*yawn

I love how people look at 100 years of data and make an assumption on global this bla bla that. The globe has gone through hundreds of thousands of iterations of cold/hot. They have no clue what they are talking about no one does.

Global warming predictions prove accurate.

OMG THEY LOOKED AT 15 YEARS!
 
Avatar 10714
 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: New dad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 18:41 ledhead1969
 
Ok, how about this:

http://bit.ly/10g3KvR

open your minds you sheep.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 18:05 eRe4s3r
 
Mhh. But that's the problem isn't it. You research something that has scientific facts and proven methods obtained by observation and experimentation at it's core. If you claimed something was one way and prove it with a slightly faulty experiment, and someone comes with a correct experiment and disproves you then that is that. But in climate science there is no way to do that. Climate could be acting chaotically for 50 years, proving theories left and right about an impending end of the world by overheating, only to do a 180 turn in year 51 to year 551 (not like that hasn't happened before, small ice age 1500-1800)

I just don't see how climate can be predictable, just because a prediction matches a 30 year curve (barely), doesn't mean it's a correct prediction for the future. Unless they tested it in an experiment to produce some kind of proof.

I don't doubt science a single bit as long as it makes claims that can be proven via experimentation or more plainly proof. But I don't understand how climate science proves anything it claims. To me, selective time frame matching for a prediction algorithm isn't proof of anything.

Oh well...
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 16:58 sauron
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 15:19:
sauron wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:34:
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 11:42:
Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it.

At the level of the Nature journals and similar, you can't just make stuff up. It will get found out in a heartbeat by your peers. They are not fools and the process is incredibly rigorous.

That's the whole point of peer review. It doesn't guarantee the truth but it makes things a whole lot more reliable. Especially in the high tier journals.

The question is, who are the peers... and who pays them for what research specifically, as you say, the high tier journals have the problem that only scientists in that field can disprove or prove a study. If all the peers that reviewed this study are climate scientists that are paid to research climate change..... would they announce if they find that climate change is not human made? Or would they propagate a "lie" by keeping or hiding certain data points (with agreements among themselves) to keep themselves employed?

My point is not that this is the case, my point is that I don't believe the journal system anymore because that could be the case. And in the same way I don't believe the "other side" either. Because they could be paid by the industry.

Essentially, they cherry picked data sources on the report 2010, that is a minor thing maybe, or maybe it is the main thing... in any case, if they do that on a MAJOR international report, what do they do behind the scenes among their peer reviews?

Are opposing viewpoints with data to prove their point listed in Nature? Or do they get rejected for false assumptions and bad logic, or reasons more nefarious?

All I am saying is, I don't trust climate scientists anymore, from both sides of the argument.

I'm a science researcher in neurobiology, and am funded by both the federal government and industry. From my experience, the feds want the truth either way and will pay for it. Industry is sometimes pushing an agenda - depends on how good they are. The smartest corporations just want reliable facts. Some of the others are less careful and more profit-oriented in the short term and don't realize this approach will hurt them in the longer term.
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 15:19 eRe4s3r
 
sauron wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:34:
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 11:42:
Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it.

At the level of the Nature journals and similar, you can't just make stuff up. It will get found out in a heartbeat by your peers. They are not fools and the process is incredibly rigorous.

That's the whole point of peer review. It doesn't guarantee the truth but it makes things a whole lot more reliable. Especially in the high tier journals.

The question is, who are the peers... and who pays them for what research specifically, as you say, the high tier journals have the problem that only scientists in that field can disprove or prove a study. If all the peers that reviewed this study are climate scientists that are paid to research climate change..... would they announce if they find that climate change is not human made? Or would they propagate a "lie" by keeping or hiding certain data points (with agreements among themselves) to keep themselves employed?

My point is not that this is the case, my point is that I don't believe the journal system anymore because that could be the case. And in the same way I don't believe the "other side" either. Because they could be paid by the industry.

Essentially, they cherry picked data sources on the report 2010, that is a minor thing maybe, or maybe it is the main thing... in any case, if they do that on a MAJOR international report, what do they do behind the scenes among their peer reviews?

Are opposing viewpoints with data to prove their point listed in Nature? Or do they get rejected for false assumptions and bad logic, or reasons more nefarious?

All I am saying is, I don't trust climate scientists anymore, from both sides of the argument.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 13:34 sauron
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 11:42:
Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it.

At the level of the Nature journals and similar, you can't just make stuff up. It will get found out in a heartbeat by your peers. They are not fools and the process is incredibly rigorous.

That's the whole point of peer review. It doesn't guarantee the truth but it makes things a whole lot more reliable. Especially in the high tier journals.
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 11:42 eRe4s3r
 
Blue wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:07:
ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 01:05:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyp9cm5

Nature.com versus investors.com. Are you sure you have properly identified the party with an agenda here?

Both parties have one though, if real doubts were cast on climate change being human made, those "climate scientists" would not have a job (I use the quotes to highlight, not to mock)

Conversely, if climate change is real, then investors are obviously going to have a huge problem. Because we would have to limit and terminate growth. And that means changing how the entire economy works (A goal worth fighting for even without climate change)

Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it. And that's the real problem here. Scientists who get paid to research climate change, and have been for many many years, will not likely make studies that disproves it.... and the industry will never admit it exists. The 2 sides have killed their arguments that way, and that is really why nobody does anything about it. There is no 100% proof like there SHOULD BE in science. It becomes a matter of belief and religion.

Anyhow, I am not sure what to think anymore.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 08:19 sauron
 
Blue wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:07:
ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 01:05:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyp9cm5

Nature.com versus investors.com. Are you sure you have properly identified the party with an agenda here?

Haha yeah. There is such a thing as a peer review process. One of the two articles went through it and was published in Nature. The other one reports a previous report bashed out on a typewriter by a member of the press with no scientific training at all.
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 08:07  Blue 
 
ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 01:05:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyp9cm5

Nature.com versus investors.com. Are you sure you have properly identified the party with an agenda here?
 
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 01:05 ledhead1969
 
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyp9cm5
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 19:18 sauron
 
Thanks guys!

Will pick it up this weekend.
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 16:52 Verno
 
sauron wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:28:
Uh, so I have been working and playing GW2, and I just got around to looking at the reviews for Bioshock Infinite. Wow.

Is it really THAT good?

It's really good. The combat and checkpoints are the lowest points but they don't seriously detract from the overall experience much. GMG had it for $45 last time I checked, not sure if its cheaper anywhere else.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Gauntlet, Dark Souls 2, Wasteland 2
Watching: Intruders, 24 Live Another Day, The Signal
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 16:48 nin
 
sauron wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:28:
Uh, so I have been working and playing GW2, and I just got around to looking at the reviews for Bioshock Infinite. Wow.

Is it really THAT good?


I'm about two and a half hours in and really enjoying it - and I had pretty high expectations. Basically, if you liked the original Bioshock, I can't see you not liking this...

 
http://store.nin.com/index.php?cPath=10
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 16:28 sauron
 
Uh, so I have been working and playing GW2, and I just got around to looking at the reviews for Bioshock Infinite. Wow.

Is it really THAT good?
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 15:09 Dagnamit
 
nin wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:32:
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:24:
They are making a sequel to independence day? Really? Oh man, that movie should be pretty good for a few laughs...


This time they'll hack the alien computer with their iphone.


An iphone with UNIX installed on it. "i know this!"
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 14:20 Tim1_2
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 13:32:
Tim1_2 wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 13:22:
Glad to hear things are OK with your neighbour. Neighbourly relations are important for a tolerable living situation!
Oh, I don't know about that. Been in my house coming up on seven years now and I think the total amount of time spent talking to neighbors is under 15 minutes -- and that includes arranging a brief incursion onto someone else property to have my landscaping guys clear some "junk trees".

But there was probably no existing bad blood between you and your neighbour. Things are different when there's animosity.
 
Currently playing: DayZ
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 13:43 Creston
 
nin wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 13:07:
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!!!!!!!!!


It's come to the point where I quickly turn Steam to offline mode when there's a sale on.

DAMN YOU, VALVE!!! Shakefist

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Out of the Blue Mar 28, 2013, 13:32 brother19
 
Hudson the wonder dog: kicking ass, taking names.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo