Internet Censorship.

[Michchamp]

What's a "politically correct" term for a person that continues to cling to a position, or belief even though the scientific evidence weighing against that position has been conclusive for years, or for example, in the case of vaccinations, like over 100 years?

See, I would just say "that person is a fucking idiot" or if they happen to be pushing some political angle that benefits from ignoring the scientific evidence, "a fucking slimeball," but that's just me.

 

[Michchamp]

ok good. I got a new mower even, it's a John Deere from America. I paid a little bit more for it than I could have gotten a cheaper full import for, I do that as much as I can, I support American jobs whenever possible even if it cost a little bit more. So does Trump, I like that about Trump, America first. China second.

He puts America & Americans first except when it comes to building his ugly buildings, in which case he uses illegal immigrant labor, or when it comes to creating his shitty branded apparel and hats, in which case he has them made in China.

you can cling to your beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. I like that about you.

 

[Michchamp]

A: I don't believe in gravity.

B: Say what? Look man: I let go of my book and it fell to the ground.

A: Anything could have caused that. Wind, God, invisible man, etc. Doesn't prove gravity.

B: It just did it again. see that? Here, I'll do it again with a rock and the book at the same time.

A: Nope. I didn't see anything.

B: Here's a book written by Sir Issac Newton 400 years ago. It lays this all out and has b-

A: FAKE news.

B: Okay, you're an idiot. Bye.

A: How dare you. I'm interested in a rational discussion here.

B: No you're not. I'm out.

A: WHY WON'T YOU ENGAGE WITH ME? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?

 

[tinselwolverine]

What about the Coriolis force? Is it science or is it fake news too, just like gravity and climate change?

 

[Michchamp]

What about the Coriolis force? Is it science or is it fake news too, just like gravity and climate change?

FAKE NEWZ!!

Sir Isaac Newton came up with that just because he wanted CONTROL over our everyday lives, including objects we chose to put in motion. he hated our FREEDOM.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well gosh dang it I guess I'm still having some nebulous issues here! uggg.

Backhanded smacks and all? my skeptic reasons are stupid or are you suggesting I'm smarter than a stupid person. IDK

I'm not saying which. I don't have a clue which. I hope the smacks are front handed to anyone they apply to though. I'm not trying to be cryptic.

Very few people can really say they know what's going on with climate change based on their smarts. Most people, myself included, have to decide who they're going to believe and maybe that's supplemented with some knowledge of some of the studies or at least headlines written about studies.

Somehow, a lot of people have decided to disregard expertise. On one side you have the American universities, a huge part of why America has the technological advantage it has, along with universities around the world, saying things that make sense if you understand how a greenhouse works and accept that various gasses can have a similar effect.

There's a lot of data out there on temperatures, sea level measurements, and the acidity of the ocean, which goes up as the ocean absorbs CO2.

Some people don't agree with the conclusions being draw, but more often than not, they aren't scientists, they're people that would profit less if we tried to change how we do things.

So who are you going to listen to? You remember the heat island effect. A well known factor that's controlled for to the best of our ability in our measurements and simulations. You choose to side with the people with a more obvious conflict of interest. Why? I'm not going to answer that question about you specifically because I know I don't know what's going on in your head.

But I think a lot of people hate the idea that they are a part of the problem. They hate guilt. They'll think anything so long as they can keep on thinking that the problems in the world are caused by other people because they are good and other people are bad.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What about the Coriolis force? Is it science or is it fake news too, just like gravity and climate change?

It's real. Real hard to understand, like gyroscopes.


I'd need to google to be scientifically correct though. It might be fake news from a global reference and only appear to exist from a spinning reference (like being on Earth.)

 

[tigermud]

He puts America & Americans first except when it comes to building his ugly buildings, in which case he uses illegal immigrant labor, or when it comes to creating his shitty branded apparel and hats, in which case he has them made in China.

you can cling to your beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. I like that about you.

Yeah, I remember him commenting about that during the 2016 campaign. I can't recall his exact words but I accepted his explanation. Glad to hear you like something about me at least. >

 

[tigermud]

A: I don't believe in gravity.

B: Say what? Look man: I let go of my book and it fell to the ground.

A: Anything could have caused that. Wind, God, invisible man, etc. Doesn't prove gravity.

B: It just did it again. see that? Here, I'll do it again with a rock and the book at the same time.

A: Nope. I didn't see anything.

B: Here's a book written by Sir Issac Newton 400 years ago. It lays this all out and has b-

A: FAKE news.

B: Okay, you're an idiot. Bye.

A: How dare you. I'm interested in a rational discussion here.

B: No you're not. I'm out.

A: WHY WON'T YOU ENGAGE WITH ME? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?

Funny you use Gravity for this example because C2C just had a guest on recently that laid out a compelling case for our current understanding of gravity being wrong. I found it very enlighting.

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/08/05

We all once thought the sun revolved around the earth too, that was accepted nondebatable science at one time I hear.

 

[tigermud]

I'm not saying which. I don't have a clue which. I hope the smacks are front handed to anyone they apply to though. I'm not trying to be cryptic.

Very few people can really say they know what's going on with climate change based on their smarts. Most people, myself included, have to decide who they're going to believe and maybe that's supplemented with some knowledge of some of the studies or at least headlines written about studies.

Somehow, a lot of people have decided to disregard expertise. On one side you have the American universities, a huge part of why America has the technological advantage it has, along with universities around the world, saying things that make sense if you understand how a greenhouse works and accept that various gasses can have a similar effect.

There's a lot of data out there on temperatures, sea level measurements, and the acidity of the ocean, which goes up as the ocean absorbs CO2.

Some people don't agree with the conclusions being draw, but more often than not, they aren't scientists, they're people that would profit less if we tried to change how we do things.

So who are you going to listen to? You remember the heat island effect. A well known factor that's controlled for to the best of our ability in our measurements and simulations. You choose to side with the people with a more obvious conflict of interest. Why? I'm not going to answer that question about you specifically because I know I don't know what's going on in your head.

But I think a lot of people hate the idea that they are a part of the problem. They hate guilt. They'll think anything so long as they can keep on thinking that the problems in the world are caused by other people because they are good and other people are bad.

How about just move them to non-heat island effect locations and take the control for simulations and best thy ability assumption factor out of the equation then see where it be. I call it all sound conclusions based upon unsound assumptions, flawed data, and faulty best guesswork simulation. Hell the weather forecast here is almost ALWAYS wrong more than 12 hours out and the funny thing is I don't remember is being like that years ago, can't help but wonder if all that geoengineering crap has it all jacked up now. I believe Dane Wigington is correct. but that's just my typical crazy Alex Jones inforwars fan stupid ass opinion, carry on..

 

[Michchamp]

Weather forecasts are probabilities of what might happen based on computer models, not predictions.

if there's a 30% chance of rain, regardless of whether it rains or doesn't rain, they're not wrong.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Funny you use Gravity for this example because C2C just had a guest on recently that laid out a compelling case for our current understanding of gravity being wrong. I found it very enlighting.

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/08/05

We all once thought the sun revolved around the earth too, that was accepted nondebatable science at one time I hear.

I think Kristen Chenoweth and Idina Menzel recently had their own skepticism regarding gravity.

 

[Michchamp]

I think Kristen Chenoweth and Idina Menzel recently had their own skepticism regarding gravity.

are they physicists?

 

[tigermud]

Popular YouTuber Ethan Klein says one of his channels was penalized Friday for discussing Alex Jones and the recent ban across social media of Infowars content.

 

[tinselwolverine]

are they physicists?

Yes but that’s just a hobby.

They actually both make their living as Broadway, television and movie stars.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sZpa2lgWWCU

 

[tigermud]

corporate fascism

Next up

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/exclusive-gavin-mcinnes-reacts-to-twitter-ban/

As far as we can tell, none of the official Antifa Twitter pages have been banned, though there are few examples of Proud Boys violence, and hundreds of Antifa violence.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Weather forecasts are probabilities of what might happen based on computer models, not predictions.

if there's a 30% chance of rain, regardless of whether it rains or doesn't rain, they're not wrong.

It could mean they're 30% sure the whole area is going to get hit, or pretty sure 30% of the area is going to get hit. Not sure which scenario it tends to be closer to, but I think it varies between the two. Sometimes they're more sure or less sure about different parts of the area getting hit.

 

[Gulo Blue]

How about just move them to non-heat island effect locations and take the control for simulations and best thy ability assumption factor out of the equation then see where it be. I call it all sound conclusions based upon unsound assumptions, flawed data, and faulty best guesswork simulation. Hell the weather forecast here is almost ALWAYS wrong more than 12 hours out and the funny thing is I don't remember is being like that years ago, can't help but wonder if all that geoengineering crap has it all jacked up now. I believe Dane Wigington is correct. but that's just my typical crazy Alex Jones inforwars fan stupid ass opinion, carry on..

This is what I mean about not accepting expertise. I have read a little about how they make these measurements, and I think I'd need to really dig in for a few months before I'd know enough to really critique the methods IF there's any chance I'd find something to critique.



But weather forecasting has improved over the years. You might not remember it that way, but I think it's rose colored glasses or something.

 

[tigermud]

This is what I mean about not accepting expertise. I have read a little about how they make these measurements, and I think I'd need to really dig in for a few months before I'd know enough to really critique the methods IF there's any chance I'd find something to critique.



But weather forecasting has improved over the years. You might not remember it that way, but I think it's rose colored glasses or something.

Again just take the guess work out of and move em or just put more out there to get balanced readings. I’m also not referring to precipitation forecasts I’m just referring to high temp forecasts. It changes every few hours on ave for the next 24 but I’m supposed to believe long term projections when we can’t even get next week right

 

[Gulo Blue]

Again just take the guess work out of and move em or just put more out there to get balanced readings. I?m also not referring to precipitation forecasts I?m just referring to high temp forecasts. It changes every few hours on ave for the next 24 but I?m supposed to believe long term projections when we can?t even get next week right

You can't move the locations of measurements taken in the past. You can take all the measurements you want now. There are buoys out in the ocean and satellite measurements and more calibrated weather stations than ever. But to compare things to the past, you have to have an estimate of current and historic heat island effects.


And high temp forecasts have improved. I don't know what you're talking about with this idea that they've gotten worse.