Page 21 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171121 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    Before we can get to that stage people need to learn that one of the foundations of American jurisprudence is that rights are not boundless.
    But many are inalienable. It's a tough argument, particularly within the context of history and the constitution, to argue gun control. You pretty much have to stick to "ban guns because I'm scared."

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    But many are inalienable. It's a tough argument, particularly within the context of history and the constitution, to argue gun control. You pretty much have to stick to "ban guns because I'm scared."
    Justice Scalia would disagree with you -

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state [****95] analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession [**2817] of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing [*627] conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26Link to the text of the note

    LEdHN[21] [21] HN21 We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); [****96] J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, [***679] 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    D.C. v. Heller

  3. #203
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    While that left an opening for a clever retort, and I can't blame you for taking it, you of course took that instead of constructive reasoning, and came to the wrong conclusion.

    What I am saying, and have said, is that the science is still young, and items like high resolution satellite data collecting are young and have only one source, models are of poor quality and obviously use a wrong theory, the Surface Station resolution as used by the GCRN is of poor quality, TSI collection and processes are just now being explored and examined.

    Making a judgement, or taking these conclusion as facts, is widely premature. I accept that my conclusions are based on facts that often conflict with other ones. There has to be a strong, robust foundation to work from, and they are not. The Mann paper shows that the IPCC models used for nearing on the last 30 years have all used a theory that was flawed.
    I'm always for more data. But.

    You have zero context for the statements you're making about models being young, or things being uncertain, or the quality of data. As compared to what? Ideal data? The current climate models probably have more man and computational hours into them than 99% of scientific simulations will ever see. It's entirely possible they're king of the hill.

    In regards to a "wrong theory," certainly you're not arguing that the last 300 years of physics are incorrect. I thought we agreed that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, infrared radiation comes from the sun, and humidity exists. What I thought you were arguing is that forcing was overestimated, which would mean an adjustment to one of the parameters in the models. The difference between a "wrong theory" and a parameter in a model isn't pedantic, it's yet another example demonstrative of the gaping chasm between scientific practice and your understanding. TSI is not just now being examined, it has been looked at for decades. Half of a minute on Google Scholar clearly demonstrates this.

    I agree, you have to have a strong foundation to work from. The foundation you've demonstrated entails an absolute complete lack of understanding of the mathematics, empiricism and analysis that goes into these studies. All else aside, without the mathematical foundation you're just parroting what you read elsewhere. Every single one of your posts is riddled with misconceptions and misunderstandings about the theory, the analysis, and the data, and even without your confrontational attitude the prospect of correcting them all is completely overwhelming. You are probably the most ideal personification of Dunning Kruger I have ever encountered.

    I obviously can't stop you from continuing to make sweeping (and way overly authoritative) statements about things you very clearly do not understand, all I can do is recommend taking a couple calc or modern physics courses at your local community college. You know, for some of that good old-fashioned liberal indoctrination.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-16-2017 at 12:03 AM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  4. #204
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174

  5. #205
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    You have zero context for the statements you're making about models being young, or things being uncertain, or the quality of data. As compared to what? Ideal data? The current climate models probably have more man and computational hours into them than 99% of scientific simulations will ever see. It's entirely possible they're king of the hill.
    Zero context? Reality vs models is the context. And the models failed.

    The fact that they both failed and now even Mann and Sanger are saying they are wrong not only agrees there is uncertainty, but that there is something that is still undiscovered, that the underlying science is wrong.

    I agree this isn't a simple field, but the alternative is that we are making hard and fast claims based on limited data and poor models. Models that can't even adjust for clouds, because the scale of the grid is still 500 miles a sector, and clouds are too small.

    Also the factors involved are huge, the equation is a huge hot mess also. You should download the FORTRAN code some time and read the programmer notes. Lots of items like aerosols are just fudge factor codes, manual adjustments in the code.

    I think it can be better - far better. And part of that is scrapping the old model all together, and also looking at other theories - something that hasn't been very frowned upon since the Hansen Model. Erik was working on a 12 dimension AI, and I was trying to get the company to retro weight 12 factors into the AI so we could actually build a clearer picture of weights for the items like CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. We have the tech, but we do need more data than one CO2 sample point that is our given. Hence the good news the OCO-2 satellite is up - but we only have just under 2 years of data from it. And it totally contradicts all previous CO2 models.

    Hence, the use of the word "YOUNG".

    In regards to a "wrong theory," certainly you're not arguing that the last 300 years of physics are incorrect. I thought we agreed that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, infrared radiation comes from the sun, and humidity exists.
    Like you said - we have been through this before. And so you know that I am not making that argument. You obviously missed something or I miss-explained something, or even made a typing error and instead of going "hey, we are past this, maybe he meant something else, I will ask him to explain" you fall back on a stupid strawman that is off topic.

    The difference between a "wrong theory" and a parameter in a model isn't pedantic, it's yet another example demonstrative of the gaping chasm between scientific practice and your understanding.
    This is where you mistake the design and structure of the model. You seem to have some assumptions of it, and think I am the one who doesn't understand it.

    The model as is uses a method of structure that holds items constant deliberately so as to see other results that are forcings. But these items vary hugely through out the grid. Some items that have a large variability in relation to CO2, like clouds, are set to a constant. Clouds, if they change just 1% can overshadow the affect of 285 to 400ppm of retained energy from CO2. There hasn't been either a good way to add clouds to the model, nor has there been a lot of ability to get detailed cloud cover for the last 100 years because we haven't had the tools, nor were they applied to this type of modeling. They just put it in

    Again, the science is still young, and our tools are poor. We can just lightly guess at the point this process was started using proxies and some small very localized datasets, compared to the far more rich and complex data we are just now getting from satellites. Shoot, our previous models of CO2 flow were a 'known' - until the OCO-2 went up and changed all of that. If they used that as the go-by, with detailed usage in the models, the new empirical data just trounced it. Everything would need to be re-written. Hence, young. Premature might be a better word.

    The problem is the error bars on the models are far larger than the signal. The adjustments that are being adjusted manually are larger than the signal. While we see a result from the models that is completely wrong. This is not a PID loop - this is a hard variable adjusted to try and make the curve fit.

    They all are wrong. They do not track with empirical data. They are all falsified.

    They may have used large amounts of computer processing time, and that might impress you, but the argument is lost, completely, if they failed to model anything correctly or even come close.

    Here you are, high on your horse telling me I need to revisit college, yet the principle you are missing to cover your argument is Middle School level basic science.

    If the data is falsified by empirical study, then the hypothesis is wrong.

    Even with all of the playing with clouds and methane and 200yo science, something is completely, consistently, methodologically wrong.

    It is falsified. You keep trying to support a theory that is FALSE that produced Models that are FALSE.

    That is a level of stubbornness and arrogance that is kind of fantastic to watch, but the science isn't on your side. It might not be 100% on mine, but it is 70% not yours. Sanger and Mann and a good chunk of those who supported the AWG Theory are now on my side.

    Steve, you lost the argument that models are correct. That they can forecast anything. That they play in a curve that resembles reality. They don't. By the amount that Richard Lindzen said. By the amount that I said. By the amount that now Sanger and Mann said. We are all saying the same thing on this now... so...

    You already lost.

    Show some sportsmanship.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-16-2017 at 03:19 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #206
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    You already lost.

    Show some sportsmanship.
    The goal of science isn't winning and losing, it's about understanding.

    Add one to the mountain.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  7. #207
    josh lost this before he even started it. lol.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #208
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    As far as I can tell you are basing the "models are wrong, Mann and Santer agree with Lindzen" statement on the following:

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...reGeosci17.pdf

    But, in the first 2 pages, they clarify how the external forcings are "wrong":
    Quote Originally Posted by the paper
    The externally
    forced contribution is due to the combined cooling effects of a
    succession of moderate early twenty-first century eruptions15,20?24
    ,
    a long and anomalously low solar minimum during the last solar
    cycle25, increased atmospheric burdens of anthropogenic sulfate
    aerosols17,26, and a decrease in stratospheric water vapour27. There
    are known systematic errors in these forcings in model simulations
    performed in support of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report2,17,19,20,27
    .
    These errors arise in part because the simulations were performed
    before more reliable estimates of early twenty-first century forcing
    became available20,27. The net effect of the forcing errors is that
    the simulations underestimate some of the cooling influences
    contributing to the observed ?slowdown?.
    Their statistical analyses is essentially correcting parts of the models with data to see whether or not internal variability could explain "the pause" - it cannot. They explicitly counter your position that the overall forcings are wrong:
    Quote Originally Posted by same paper
    It has been posited that the differences between modelled
    and observed tropospheric warming rates are solely attributable
    to a fundamental error in model sensitivity to anthropogenic
    greenhouse gas increases28. Several aspects of our results cast doubt on the ?sensitivity error? explanation. First, it is difficult
    to understand why significant differences between modelled and
    observed warming rates should be preferentially concentrated in
    the early twenty-first century (see Fig. 2). A fundamental model
    sensitivity error should be manifest more uniformly in time. Second,
    a large sensitivity error should appear not only in trend behaviour,
    but also in the response to major volcanic eruptions46. After removal
    of ENSO variability, however, there are no large systematic model
    errors in tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chich?n
    in 1982 and Pinatubo in 199115
    .
    We performed a ?perfect model? analysis to further investigate this
    issue. We consider whether asymmetries in the sign and temporal
    distribution of significant trends in 1Tf −o(k, t) could be solely
    due to the combined effects of a large model sensitivity error and
    different realizations of modelled and observed internal variability.
    The ?perfect model? study emulates our analysis of the ?MMA
    minus satellite? difference series.
    . . . .

    In contrast, statistically unusual values of all three asymmetry
    statistics could have been plausibly generated by the temporal
    coincidence of multiple externally forced and internally generated
    cooling influences in the early twenty-first century. Internally
    driven contributions to the ?warming slowdown? arise from the
    transition to a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
    (IPO) in roughly 199911,13,16,52, and from changes in the phasing of
    other internal variability modes14,53. Our statistical results are best
    explained by the combined effects of these known phase changes
    and by previously identified systematic model forcing errors in the
    early twenty-first century2,17,20,25,27
    Emphases mine. References for further investigation of the stratospheric water vapor trends (likely to be lower frequency than tropospheric)
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e97...e444cbbb97.pdf

    For a background in why the simplistic explanation doesn't reproduce the historical record over short terms:
    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/8...-8031-2017.pdf



    I don't know who Erik is, but a "12 dimensional AI" sounds an awful lot like a neural network with 12 input parameters. Without knowing anything else about the architecture (a simple, non-deep model can be executed in softwares as simple as Excel), I can tell you with high confidence that this is not a good approach. You'd need, at minimum, an LSTM-RNN, and even then you're almost certainly overfitting. As these models are completely data driven, they can only probe retroactive effect sizes, and are very hard to get causality out of, because they tend to be time-lag agnostic. Some understanding of the physics is needed to inform the models, and then empirical fits to the data tend to work really well. The chemical engineering curriculum is replete with examples of this - I've been putting the Chilton-Colburn analogy in heavy rotation myself lately.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  9. #209
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Okay, you kinda got me, you are right, science is about understanding. But that isn't this discussion. It was said I took anti-scientific positions, of which you stated affirmative.

    In the end, my scientific position was upheld, with science. Your's was not. It is still the internet, it isn't about science. It is about being right.

    (bows)
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #210
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I am repeating myself, again, but: 'The Theory' states water vapor will increase at a rate of approximately 3X the amount of CO2, since CO2 and Water have a 'power' of about 1.

    Without that forcing CO2 is not a run-away GHG. It needed to use water as the feedback for that.

    The skeptics have said this for a while. The models were based on that. If there was not a 3X increase in stratospheric water vapors, the Theory is wrong.

    Well,

    a decrease in stratospheric water vapour

    The net effect of the forcing errors is that
    the simulations underestimate some of the cooling influences
    contributing to the observed ?slowdown
    No increase. A slight decrease.

    There is no conflict - that stated exactly what I have been stating for a while. In fact, Lindzen actually measured that forcing in the 2009 and 2011 papers and found it to be negative.

    This has been killed Ryan. A dozen times in here. I am just repeating myself. Again and again.

    Here is a picture:

    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-16-2017 at 05:25 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •