mbj, Co2, and forum expertise (split from E2016 thread)

Why is it a good thing to extend the amount of time our species lives?

Quote: MathExtremist

The policy question is simple: should we maximize our species' chance for long-term survival or not? Because there's a word that describes virtually all species that didn't do that.

Extinct.

It is doubtful we can change the evolution of a planet. IMHO humans have less than 1,000 years until we are gone. Demographically and socially inevitable. We had a good run, but the final act is starting. Even if I am wrong, adaptation is what will need to happen. One species cannot fight a planet.

Quote: gordonm888

I do not know BBB in the slightest and she has sometimes been mad or irritated with the tone of something I have posted. However, I am almost always impressed with her posts because they are consistently thoughtful, balanced and well-written. She never claims to be a know-it-all (which none of us truly are) but clearly does know quite a lot - and she knows how to think and make judgments. The Wiz is in a class by himself because of his accomplishments and his inquisitiveness, but IMO, BBB is the best of the mods when it comes to participating in the social life of the forum.

I do have a question about The Grim Reaper's lifetime ban. I have seen the NCAA punish college coaches more harshly for lieing to the NCAA investigators than for buying hookers for recruits - and I have never liked that. Congress does that too - lieing to congress is more unforgivable than felonies against common people. Also, killing a cop is punishable by summary execution at the hands of cops, whereas murderers of other people are usually arrested and tried. I completely agree that TheGrimReaper's personal comments about the mods were a banning offense. My question is: do you punish personal attacks against moderators more severely than personal attacks against others? It would be human nature to do so.

I think it's a fair question. I address most situations on a case by case basis, not post by post. So, in this particular case, I reviewed his last 50 or so posts, and the two past suspensions in the last 6 months. It seemed clear to me his overall purpose is as a detractor rather than a contributor. He sneers at members, moderators, the forum itself, its purpose, and its idiosyncrasies. All of that is available for your review as well, btw.

If he offered constructive criticism, which in a way you're doing, I might debate the validity, but would have the conversation. Instead he just distorts things into angry or bitter cutting remarks. I honestly think it's a dancing on the edge thing with him, trying to see how far he can go. Found it. So he's gone.

It's hard to say I'm objective, since I'm the subject of the question. But I tend not to take action when I'm the recipient just to prevent reacting out of prejudice. I wait for or ask another mod for an unbiased reading. I've been asked to do the same on occasion. In this case (again )there's plenty of derision and debasement without counting any of the remarks directed at me, so I felt I could move forward.

Had there not been two previous, recent suspensions, I would likely have stopped short of nuking. But he Martingaled himself out of here.

(Edited for spelling errors. .bbb)

Plus, you know,

Quote: beachbumbabs Administrator

Jerkface.

Quote: Calder

Plus, you know,

Yep. Was the first time I've been called a whore. I thought it deserved special recognition. :)

Quote: EvenBob

If I wanted to read about
fantasies I would go to a religion thread, where all
talk about GW belongs anyway.

And if I wanted to read about fantasies.....well, can you write more about your roulette system? ;)

Quote: beachbumbabs

Yep. Was the first time I've been called a whore.

That you know of.

According to Axel calculations the average female gets called a whore on average once every few months. Usually do to their bad driving

Quote: AZDuffman

It is doubtful we can change the evolution of a planet. IMHO humans have less than 1,000 years until we are gone. Demographically and socially inevitable. We had a good run, but the final act is starting. Even if I am wrong, adaptation is what will need to happen. One species cannot fight a planet.

Not now we can't. But the technological evolution of humanity in the past 1000 years has been exponentially greater than any other known species over any prior timeframe. Within just the past century alone, human technology has surpassed its entire advancement over the previous 200,000 years. It's very possible that humanity won't be the dominant life form on Earth 1000 years from now, but there are three ways that can happen: extinction, evacuation, or evolution (speciation).

The problem we face is that we're not capable of either of the last two options just yet. And if we kill ourselves off before we are, we'll foreclose either possibility. It's all well and good to point to pre-human history and say "temperatures on Earth have been hot before" but we didn't have cities like Miami, Boston, San Diego, Calcutta, Bangkok, Shanghai, Sydney, London, Venice or Buenos Aires back then. Now we do. If the ice caps melt, every single one of those cities will be underwater. And that's not an impossible scenario -- those ice caps weren't there at all when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Despite what the creationists might have you believe, that was all before humans evolved.

So unless you have a genocidal death wish, it's pretty important to be paying attention to policy that ensures the long-term survivability of our species by maintaining planetary conditions that are capable of supporting human life. If enough of us are willing to sacrifice that long-term survival for short-term convenience, we all will.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think it's a fair question. I address most situations on a case by case basis, not post by post. So, in this particular case, I reviewed his last 50 or so posts, and the two past suspensions in the last 6 months. It seemed clear to me his overall purpose is as a detractor rather than a contributor. He sneers at members, moderators, the forum itself, its purpose, and its idiosyncrasies. All of that is available for your review as well, btw.

If he offered constructive criticism, which in a way you're doing, I might debate the validity, but would have the conversation. Instead he just distorts things into angry or bitter cutting remarks. I honestly think it's a dancing on the edge thing with him, trying to see how far he can go. Found it. So he's gone.

It's hard to say I'm objective, since I'm the subject of the question. But I tend not to take action when I'm the recipient just to prevent reacting out of prejudice. I wait for or ask another mod for an unbiased reading. I've been asked to do the same on occasion. In this case (again )there's plenty of derision and debasement without counting any of the remarks directed at me, so I felt I could move forward.

Had there not been two previous, recent suspensions, I would likely have stopped short of nuking. But he Martingaled himself out of here.

(Edited for spelling errors. .bbb)

An extremely good answer. Thank you.

I wonder what would happen if you implemented a small section of the forum for Uncensored discussion. LOL, with this cast of characters, I think it would be brutal. Not recommended!

Quote: MathExtremist

The problem we face is that we're not capable of either of the last two options just yet. And if we kill ourselves off before we are, we'll foreclose either possibility. It's all well and good to point to pre-human history and say "temperatures on Earth have been hot before" but we didn't have cities like Miami, Boston, San Diego, Calcutta, Bangkok, Shanghai, Sydney, London, Venice or Buenos Aires back then. Now we do. If the ice caps melt, every single one of those cities will be underwater. And that's not an impossible scenario -- those ice caps weren't there at all when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Despite what the creationists might have you believe, that was all before humans evolved.

So unless you have a genocidal death wish, it's pretty important to be paying attention to policy that ensures the long-term survivability of our species by maintaining planetary conditions that are capable of supporting human life. If enough of us are willing to sacrifice that long-term survival for short-term convenience, we all will.

I hate to break this to you, but glaciers and ice have been melting for 10,000+ years. Long before industrialization was even thought of. "Policy" did not melt them and it will not save them. The climate of the planet is going to do what it and the Sun want it to do. Despite your disdain for creationists, there are forces at play with far more power than humanity.

My prediction remains that humans go extinct within 1,000 years for reasons having zero to do with so-called climate change. My reasons have to do with demographics, economics, and human behavior. Over the next 100 years the die for extinction of mankind will be cast. By the end of that 100 years the forces if cause will take perhaps 500 years to reverse if they can be. And as a hint, proposed global warming policies will make extinction more not less inevitable.

Quote: AZDuffman

I hate to break this to you, but glaciers and ice have been melting for 10,000+ years. Long before industrialization was even thought of.

Nobody's disputing that, after all that's when Earth was coming out of the last ice age. But neither should anyone be disputing the fact that the rate of glacial melt over the past 150 years has deviated from historical and pre-historical trends. Or that if they all melt, we're going to lose an awful lot of coastal cities.

Quote:

"Policy" did not melt them and it will not save them. The climate of the planet is going to do what it and the Sun want it to do. Despite your disdain for creationists, there are forces at play with far more power than humanity.

Absolutely there are forces at play with more power than humanity, though I don't think we're thinking of the same forces. Despite our egos, humanity isn't even a Type I society yet (on the Kardashev scale), and we'd need to be far along the path to Type II in order to have the sort of direct and immediate intentional effects on the planet's ecosystem that you envision would help. However, we clearly do have unintentional effects on the planet now, and only someone with his head in the sand denies the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature rise, both relative to historical trends. And you're right -- policy is likely too late to save the polar ice caps. A study from NOAA seven years ago indicated that the effects of excess CO2 production were likely irreversible even if we just went back to pre-industrial technology.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

But good policy can still save your descendents. However, that won't happen if the policy is "don't worry about it, everything's fine, this is what's supposed to happen, let's just keep the global economy humming along and ignore the atmosphere -- and what we need to do to preserve our species despite what our planet is doing." You don't deny that climate change is happening -- you literally just said that the glaciers were melting.

Quote:

My prediction remains that humans go extinct within 1,000 years for reasons having zero to do with so-called climate change. My reasons have to do with demographics, economics, and human behavior. Over the next 100 years the die for extinction of mankind will be cast. By the end of that 100 years the forces if cause will take perhaps 500 years to reverse if they can be. And as a hint, proposed global warming policies will make extinction more not less inevitable.

I'm not sure which policies you're referring to, but I don't think it will be 100 years before we know what's happening. If you believe Kurzweil, we've got about 30. Add to that the rapid proliferation of WMD that are usable by individuals (e.g., biologicals and radiologicals), and we'll soon be in a situation where the only way to prevent mass casualties is to convince everyone to be nice to each other. If you look at the world stage, that doesn't seem so likely. But the worst thing we can do is say "look, there's no hope for us anyway, do whatever you want." You know what happens when people have no hope.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not sure which policies you're referring to, but I don't think it will be 100 years before we know what's happening. If you believe Kurzweil, we've got about 30. Add to that the rapid proliferation of WMD that are usable by individuals (e.g., biologicals and radiologicals), and we'll soon be in a situation where the only way to prevent mass casualties is to convince everyone to be nice to each other. If you look at the world stage, that doesn't seem so likely. But the worst thing we can do is say "look, there's no hope for us anyway, do whatever you want." You know what happens when people have no hope.

Nonsense on saying we have 30. I've heard that for 30 years. We are always 15-30 years from disaster. The ice caps were supposed to be gone by now. Hasn't happened yet.

What I am talking about as to policy is loss of freedom and tax and spending polices that will inevitably collapse the world economy. Population is already declining in the west, the USA only increases due to immigration. Western values dying will be huge, the developed world will resemble the Middle East and Africa. IOW, ethnic violence and corruption. What will be different is falling birth rates. Poverty will force them lower. Cities will be unable to maintain infrastructure. The cycle will feed on itself.

That's not the 30 years I was referring to. Look up the technological singularity. Still pegged at around 2045.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's not the 30 years I was referring to. Look up the technological singularity. Still pegged at around 2045.

My point is the 30 years keeps changing to suit the needs of those pushing it. Lap it up if you like, but I am not buying it. In 2040 they will move it out to 2070 and say we had better raise carbon taxes or we will perish.

Quote: AZDuffman

My point is the 30 years keeps changing to suit the needs of those pushing it. Lap it up if you like, but I am not buying it. In 2040 they will move it out to 2070 and say we had better raise carbon taxes or we will perish.

There are AP plays here.
Short sell coastal property.
Buy soon to be oceanfront property inland.
Buy Canada, all of it.
Greenland looks good too...

Quote: RS

And if I wanted to read about fantasies.....well, can you write more about your roulette system? ;)

Or simply go read the the DI threads.

Quote: AZDuffman

My point is the 30 years keeps changing to suit the needs of those pushing it. Lap it up if you like, but I am not buying it. In 2040 they will move it out to 2070 and say we had better raise carbon taxes or we will perish.

I wish your wish that this is true, was true.

It's not a fairy tale. It is our future. The fairy tale that it's deniable science was invented by pr specialists whose companies and constituents could not afford to do what was necessary to prevent it. Their choices were
1. tens to hundreds of millions in equipment and emission modification per large facility.
2. Shut down large industries like paper, metals, cars, mining, plastics, oil refining. Or
3. Deny the science.

Guess which way it went.

30-50 years ago, when there started to be an understanding of what was happening, it might have been fixable with moderate impact to the industries. 20 years ago, maybe with drastic changes.

Now? Screwed, it seems. Without recourse. Maybe with a complete shutdown and human exit, the world can scrub itself in a few hundred years. That's never going to happen, but perhaps a sustainable population can be moved off the planet before this one is choked and has, in turn, choked the life from all beings. Not sure the universe needs us, though. We had our chance.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Now? Screwed, it seems. Without recourse. Maybe with a complete shutdown and human exit, the world can scrub itself in a few hundred years. That's never going to happen, but perhaps a sustainable population can be moved off the planet before this one is choked and has, in turn, choked the life from all beings. Not sure the universe needs us, though. We had our chance.

Isn't the doom and gloom a bit extreme, though?

If we widen the view a bit, I fail to see the Extinction Level Event that some envision. I mean, it's just a few degrees. We're not gonna boil, we're not gonna asphyxiate. A problem, sure, but an ELE?

I'm not trying to minimize the danger. What is it, like 70some% of the pop lives on a coastline? The loss would make the national deficit look like a nickel in the gutter. But what will really happen?

To me (and I'm pretty ignorant) it seems like, well, anything else. The places that are highly populated and would be affected by this are highly populated for a reason. If the reason changes or ceases to exist... people move. Used to be that Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, these were the places to be. The Great Lakes barges, the rail, the water; for that era, these places had everything you needed for economic success. But things changed. The resources that made these places so successful were made obsolete. As a result, they started to slow, then stop, then decay. The places are now s#$%, but the people are mostly fine. Living in NC somewhere, most likely ;)

Savannah, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, NYC... they just become Detroit. The writing's on the wall so bit by bit people move. Now Macon, Raleigh, Columbia are coastal cities. They experience huge boom. Life goes on.

Seems the same for the weather. People came to Cali for the resources. If they dry up, so do the people. It happens in mining towns, farming towns, oil towns. So all of Cali now looks like Arizona. Pretty bad for the Cali farmers. But now millions of uninhabited Canada is ripe, and you know that muskeg's gotta be fertile. Screw Florida, I get my oranges from Moose Jaw. Saskatchewan, the citrus capitol. Whatever.

People are worthless, but damn, are we resilient. Life will go on. Hell, it might even be better. How can you even complain about a world without LA and NYC?!

Someone get George Strait in the booth. "Oceanfront Property" is gonna need a rewrite to make sense anymore ;)

All the new artificial reefs will make for some great saltwater fishing!

But what if, just what if, we have started a cycle that can't be reversed, and feeds on itself.
Doesn't have to be exponential, just an increasing rate of increase can add up in a hurry.

Sort-of like my gambling loses ;-(

Quote: Face

Isn't the doom and gloom a bit extreme, though?

If we widen the view a bit, I fail to see the Extinction Level Event that some envision. I mean, it's just a few degrees. We're not gonna boil, we're not gonna asphyxiate. A problem, sure, but an ELE?

I'm not trying to minimize the danger. What is it, like 70some% of the pop lives on a coastline? The loss would make the national deficit look like a nickel in the gutter. But what will really happen?

To me (and I'm pretty ignorant) it seems like, well, anything else. The places that are highly populated and would be affected by this are highly populated for a reason. If the reason changes or ceases to exist... people move. Used to be that Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, these were the places to be. The Great Lakes barges, the rail, the water; for that era, these places had everything you needed for economic success. But things changed. The resources that made these places so successful were made obsolete. As a result, they started to slow, then stop, then decay. The places are now s#$%, but the people are mostly fine. Living in NC somewhere, most likely ;)

Savannah, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, NYC... they just become Detroit. The writing's on the wall so bit by bit people move. Now Macon, Raleigh, Columbia are coastal cities. They experience huge boom. Life goes on.

Seems the same for the weather. People came to Cali for the resources. If they dry up, so do the people. It happens in mining towns, farming towns, oil towns. So all of Cali now looks like Arizona. Pretty bad for the Cali farmers. But now millions of uninhabited Canada is ripe, and you know that muskeg's gotta be fertile. Screw Florida, I get my oranges from Moose Jaw. Saskatchewan, the citrus capitol. Whatever.

People are worthless, but damn, are we resilient. Life will go on. Hell, it might even be better. How can you even complain about a world without LA and NYC?!

Someone get George Strait in the booth. "Oceanfront Property" is gonna need a rewrite to make sense anymore ;)

I'm not a climate change expert. In fact, I'm more of a head -in-sander than anything,because I can't do anything about it.

My understanding is the critical point has been surpassed on particulates in the air. That's what is disturbing the ozone that protects us, causing the atmospheric heating that's led to warmer temps, wilder weather, and ice cap melting. And the saturation is continuing to rise.

They have no idea how to clean or remove the particulates from the air. It's killing plants and lower species, disrupting the food chain, throwing the ecological balance on tilt. And it's already beyond recovery. We're on the Titanic, but the crew is still serving dinner, hoping there's nothing to that scraping thud a few minutes ago.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm not a climate change expert. In fact, I'm more of a head -in-sander than anything,because I can't do anything about it.

My understanding is the critical point has been surpassed on particulates in the air. That's what is disturbing the ozone that protects us, causing the atmospheric heating that's led to warmer temps, wilder weather, and ice cap melting. And the saturation is continuing to rise.

They have no idea how to clean or remove the particulates from the air. It's killing plants and lower species, disrupting the food chain, throwing the ecological balance on tilt. And it's already beyond recovery. We're on the Titanic, but the crew is still serving dinner, hoping there's nothing to that scraping thud a few minutes ago.

Nope, you are not an expert at all by these statements. It kills me how GW believers keep mixing up the science.

Ozone depletion was not because of particulates, it was because of chlorofluorocarbon molecules. Said CFCs were made for things from freon to propellants to pest control fumigants. They were a miracle chemical. However, they rose high to the stratosphere. Ozone, or O3, is up there and it somehow, by I assume its denser mass than O2 but if Walter White is here he can correct me, it somehow filters UV rays present in natural light. But the CFC's like the O2 better than their own atomic buddies, so the break apart and steal an O atom, making O3 into O2. However, they do not hang around, dumping the O and stealing another from another O3, which is because oxygen prefers to be O2 than O3. Over and over, until the heavy atoms from the CFC fall to the ground.

Meanwhile, particulates should actually in and of themselves cool things down. Like when that volcano erupted and caused The Year Without a Summer. They are dark, they absorb light, light cannot get past. Same as if you put one of those shades in your windshield.

Ozone is repairing itself since CFCs were largely banned in the late 1980s. Still in phaseout, though. If you want to eat chocolate, they have to be used to treat the raw materials as they enter the USA in Queens. Some other uses surely cannot be replaced. But you can even adapt the A/C on your classic car to use the new stuff.

It matters not what we do, one day the Earth will indeed shake us off like the fleas we are, Could be a few big volcanoes at one time. A pandemic flu. Anything. One more thing to break to you, all that CO2 we are releasing was in the atmosphere before. Trees absorbed it and died, making wood and coal. They will absorb it again, The cycle continues, and is bigger than us.

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope, you are not an expert at all by these statements. It kills me how GW believers keep mixing up the science.

Believers? Science is sometimes hard to comprehend, but that's no excuse to disbelieve it. Same with mathematics. You don't dispute that the Martingale betting system is incapable of overcoming the house edge, do you? I'm sure there are lots of people who believe that, but they're wrong. Similarly, there are lots of people who think the Earth's climate isn't changing, but they're wrong too. Virtually all legitimate climate scientists agree that the Earth is heating up more rapidly than it has in the recent past. Literally today, NASA released their measurements for April temperatures and here's what April looks like over the past 130 years:


There is a legitimate debate to be had about what policies we should enact to mitigate the effects of climate change on our species (and other species) but it's just asinine to suggest that the climate isn't actually changing. You're not actually suggesting that, are you? If you are, read and digest this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Quote: MathExtremist

Believers? Science is sometimes hard to comprehend, but that's no excuse to disbelieve it. Same with mathematics. You don't dispute that the Martingale betting system is incapable of overcoming the house edge, do you? I'm sure there are lots of people who believe that, but they're wrong. Similarly, there are lots of people who think the Earth's climate isn't changing, but they're wrong too. Virtually all legitimate climate scientists agree that the Earth is heating up more rapidly than it has in the recent past. Literally today, NASA released their measurements for April temperatures and here's what April looks like over the past 130 years:


There is a legitimate debate to be had about what policies we should enact to mitigate the effects of climate change on our species (and other species) but it's just asinine to suggest that the climate isn't actually changing. You're not actually suggesting that, are you? If you are, read and digest this:

If you had an unlimited bankroll and no bet limits then martingale would work. However, the time series is short and limited. I know a dealer saw a guy drop over a grand on his last bet to win back $0.25!

These measurements are also limited. 140 years, and the farther back you go the more inaccurate they are. Now they are probably using satellites. Years ago they used land stations. And the land stations move. By me the temps pre-1950s were always higher when they moved the station to the airport. I have lived places where a few blocks is a degree or two,

GIGO, No accurate measurements, too short a time series to matter, Not giving up my money and freedom for such a study.

For those that do, baaah, baaah,

Quote: RS

Personally, I don't buy any of the data or whatever about something that happend many thousands of years ago. I'm no scientist, but isn't part of science like, you're supposed to be able to duplicate an experiment/test and be able to verify your method? I don't see that being the case when there's no way to verify what the actual CO2 levels (or temperature or whatever) was a long long time ago.

This is the global problem with anti-science sentiment. Many admitted non-scientists believe that science is simply invalid.

Read this and let me know if you've changed your mind about your specific example:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

Quote: AZDuffman

If you had an unlimited bankroll and no bet limits then martingale would work.

No, and this is the crux of the problem with your mindset and those who share it. You're substituting your uneducated intuition, which is false, for the mathematical or scientific truth because you don't comprehend the math or science. I'm not going to be able to change your mind if you literally don't believe in mathematics or science and you feel that practitioners in those fields are all charlatans. Whether it's rejection of probability theory, biochemistry, or even the validity of testable evidence-based analytical methodology, it is willfully ignorant to reject centuries of human academic progress because you don't understand it.

I'm sure this quote is from one of your least-favorite people, but it's timely and apropos so here it is anyway:

Quote: President Obama, 2016 Rutgers Commencement

Ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm sure this quote is from one of your least-favorite people, but it's timely and apropos so here it is anyway:

Interesting quote from Obama as he seems to often have no clue what he is talking about, He is the most street-stupid POTUS of our time. He is the kind of "science guy" who thinks the dog food should sell well because they tested it, but does not realize the dogs do not like it.

As to your "understand it" comment, I do understand it. I just use my own mind to question it rather than sit and listen because someone said to do so. An intellectually curious person will question things, A non-curious one will say, "well, these scientists say it is right so it must be right!"

Pull out all the math you want. Martingale will work with an unlimited bankroll and no limits because no matter the house edge if I can always try again I will eventually win. The point is it fails because bankroll and bets are limited. I don't need a math degree to explain that.

Quote: RS

What does "temperature anomaly" mean? If it means how much the temp is different from time 0 (i.e.: year 1880).....then I'm not sure this graph really means anything significant. What, it's 1* C hotter today than it was 130 years ago?
I don't know what other anti-GW people think, but I'm pretty sure the Earth goes through cycles where it does get hotter and colder (i.e.: ice age). This is not necessarily man-made, and I think that's what those who say GW is a myth/hoax/untrue/etc. are saying....correlation does not imply causation.
Personally, I don't buy any of the data or whatever about something that happend many thousands of years ago. I'm no scientist, but isn't part of science like, you're supposed to be able to duplicate an experiment/test and be able to verify your method? I don't see that being the case when there's no way to verify what the actual CO2 levels (or temperature or whatever) was a long long time ago.

I find your new posting format somewhat annoying.
But it matches your jumpy cat perfectly ;-)
Just 2F

<edit> maybe I'd like it better on a small screen.
Very small screen ;-)

Quote: AZDuffman

Pull out all the math you want. Martingale will work with an unlimited bankroll and no limits because no matter the house edge if I can always try again I will eventually win. The point is it fails because bankroll and bets are limited. I don't need a math degree to explain that.

Oh, no. Please not 24 pages of this again!

Thank you BBB for splitting this dreck off of the 2016 Election thread.

Quote: AZDuffman

As to your "understand it" comment, I do understand it. I just use my own mind to question it rather than sit and listen because someone said to do so. An intellectually curious person will question things, A non-curious one will say, "well, these scientists say it is right so it must be right!"

Pull out all the math you want. Martingale will work with an unlimited bankroll and no limits because no matter the house edge if I can always try again I will eventually win. The point is it fails because bankroll and bets are limited. I don't need a math degree to explain that.

You're making my point brilliantly. You don't need a math degree to offer incorrect views on mathematics, just as you don't need a climate science degree to offer incorrect views on climate science. But those views are still incorrect regardless of how proud you feel about being uneducated in a subject. Ignorance is not a virtue, and waving your boastful ignorance in the face of those who have actually taken the time to educate themselves is just ridiculous. You think you know better because you know less!

When you "use your own mind" to reject axiomatic mathematics or well-researched science in favor of your own uneducated intuition. that's not intellectual curiosity, it's intellectual dishonesty and laziness. If you were truly curious, you'd first learn to understand what you're talking about before you render an opinion on it. I don't know what it is about your psyche that makes you inherently distrust the opinions of educated people, or have such an open hostility to education, but it's sad that so many others share that same distrust and hostility.

Probability theory, like climate science, is not a topic which lends itself to straightforward intuitive comprehension. That's why, despite thousands of years of humans playing wagering games, it took until the 17th century and several true polymath geniuses to correctly codify the subject. It's also why so many people fall so badly for sucker bets: humans are terrible at intuiting probabilities. Your uneducated intuition is provably wrong about the Martingale, and you could learn why if you actually studied the subject. But I'm not going to rehash that explanation here, it's been done to death elsewhere on this forum.

Me thinks ME crossed the line, in a beautiful way by the way.
But there is a line, even for the beautifully brilliant.
But I'm just 2F.....

Quote: MathExtremist

You're making my point brilliantly. You don't need a math degree to offer incorrect views on mathematics, just as you don't need a climate science degree to offer incorrect views on climate science. But those views are still incorrect regardless of how proud you feel about being uneducated in a subject. Ignorance is not a virtue, and waving your boastful ignorance in the face of those who have actually taken the time to educate themselves is just ridiculous. You think you know better because you know less!

When you "use your own mind" to reject axiomatic mathematics or well-researched science in favor of your own uneducated intuition. that's not intellectual curiosity, it's intellectual dishonesty and laziness. If you were truly curious, you'd first learn to understand what you're talking about before you render an opinion on it. I don't know what it is about your psyche that makes you inherently distrust the opinions of educated people, or have such an open hostility to education, but it's sad that so many others share that same distrust and hostility.

Probability theory, like climate science, is not a topic which lends itself to straightforward intuitive comprehension. That's why, despite thousands of years of humans playing wagering games, it took until the 17th century and several true polymath geniuses to correctly codify the subject. It's also why so many people fall so badly for sucker bets: humans are terrible at intuiting probabilities. Your uneducated intuition is provably wrong about the Martingale, and you could learn why if you actually studied the subject. But I'm not going to rehash that explanation here, it's been done to death elsewhere on this forum.

Since 2F is calling for a suspension here: Please allow me to claim every syllable of the above post as my own in solidarity with ME. Let this be on record as my publicly stated opinion. And I invite all the anti-science anti-education folks on this forum to feel offended and complain to the mods.

ME thanks for this excellently worded rebuttal on the pro-ignorance argument.

I am sick of this, not because of this forum, but because of certain media and even elected officials. It is cool now to proudly and openly profess your ignorance and still get a TV show or re-elected. And even somehow making the argument that being knowledgable on a topic (let alone being a scientist) in some twisted idiotic way disqualifies one's expertise and opinion.

The 2F did NOT call for a suspension here.
Just to be clear, here.
The 2F called for gentlemanly, or gentlewomenly, conduct by all.
Carry on.
Try not to get overly excited, your heart can only stand so much ;-)

Quote: MathExtremist

If you were truly curious, you'd first learn to understand what you're talking about before you render an opinion on it.

I have done that. What upsets you is I use my own mind and disagree with what you think is correct. Science has been wrong many, many times before changing their mind, and in many cases then changing it back.

Quote:

I don't know what it is about your psyche that makes you inherently distrust the opinions of educated people, or have such an open hostility to education, but it's sad that so many others share that same distrust and hostility.

I do not have a hostility towards education. What I have a hostility to is people who respect someone just because they crammed themselves into a university because they could not handle the real world. Then certain people say, "they are a scientist, so don't use your mind, let them think for you!"

I distrust "educated people" who insist that then cannot be challenged and that I can only be saved by funneling my money and freedom to them. What is sad is not people like me, but folks that say we should not challenge what scientists are saying. It is one step away from someone in Elvis Country who sends all their money to the preacher on TV because he sounds so smart to them.

I have to ask why even educate yourself if all you do is insist everyone listen to what someone else says?

Quote: AZDuffman

I have done that. What upsets you is I use my own mind and disagree with what you think is correct. Science has been wrong many, many times before changing their mind, and in many cases then changing it back.

Absolutely it has, but that's not a valid critique of the method -- on the contrary, it proves it's working. Science is only wrong in hindsight, with the benefit of additional information that was previously unknown. That's the beauty of the scientific method and peer review: hypotheses are testable and disprovable, and the best theory is the one that most fully explains observations without yet having been disproven. Any contrary evidence is capable of disproving a theory.

That doesn't upset me, though. What upsets me about your mindset is that you think you're "using your own mind" but in reality you're engaging in unwitting circular reasoning, by cherry picking the data you evaluate and forming a conclusion based on that data. That is not correct reasoning. I could use the same reasoning to conclude that "roulette wheels always spin red", because I conveniently ignore the times they spin black or green. That's obviously incorrect cherry-picking, but it's just as incorrect (if less obvious) to cherry pick less than 100% of the information you evaluate with respect to probability theory or climate science. You don't get a gold star by evaluating only the data that supports your position and then claiming "look at me, I'm thinking for myself!"

For an example, take the time to read the Martingale thread where I explained to Exoter why the Martingale system doesn't alter the house edge of roulette. You think it does, and so do a lot of other people, and you're all wrong. You may be "using your mind" and "thinking for yourself" when you reject the correct mathematics but those are meaningless self-congratulatory sentiments because you're still wrong, just as a grade schooler is "using his mind" when he answers incorrectly on a math test. Everyone uses his or her mind. Not everyone uses it properly.

For another example, though I'm not sure where you even start to disagree with the climate science, tell me on what basis you dispute the fact that CO2, CH4, and N2O levels are now higher than they have been at any other time during the previous 800,000 years (four times the span of humanity's existence):



from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

Quote:

I do not have a hostility towards education. What I have a hostility to is people who respect someone just because they crammed themselves into a university because they could not handle the real world.

You actually think that's what doing science is? That is itself a horrible anti-science bias, and an unbelievable admission of your ignorance of the foundations of your cushy, first-world lifestyle. The reason you and I are able to have the conversation we're having, using the medium we're using, is because educated people long before you were born studied how to harness electricity, develop digital circuitry, and enable wireless data transmission. You think scientists can't handle the real world? Scientists built the real world!

Quote:

I distrust "educated people" who insist that then cannot be challenged and that I can only be saved by funneling my money and freedom to them. What is sad is not people like me, but folks that say we should not challenge what scientists are saying.

Nobody worth listening to is saying that. The entire premise of science is to challenge the status quo and increase our knowledge of the world. But you won't ever be in a legitimate position to challenge that status quo until you understand it, and unfortunately we're at a position in the evolution of human knowledge where it requires many years of study to actually do that. It used to be the case that a well-educated person could master numerous subjects by the time they were in their 50s -- they called them Renaissance Men because, well, the last time you could effectively pull that off was during the Renaissance. But now someone can spend a lifetime studying one topic and not come close to mastering it. But that's no excuse for your effusive and dripping disdain for those who dedicate their lives to such study with the aim of improving the human condition. Ask yourself what do you do to improve the human condition.

More importantly, you haven't undertaken such study, and what's worse, you don't trust those who have. You are in no position to challenge the work of a scientist who understands his topic while you do not. You are not on equal footing, and your opinion -- what you arrive at by "using your own mind" when you cherry pick and reason circularly -- is not as credible or weighty as the conclusion of a learned scholar. Similarly, you are in no position to challenge mathematics that you don't understand, such as when you cavalierly insist that the Martingale system can alter the house edge of roulette while gleefully flaunting your lack of mathematics education. You can do it anyway, and you have, but your criticisms are invalid because your comprehension is absent.

If you truly want to use your mind and think for yourself, actually do it, and do it correctly. Don't fall into the mob mentality of distrusting people who have studied math or science just because they're more dedicated than you are, and don't think that you're "using your mind" just because you're contrarian. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and pro-ignorance mindsets are scourges on American society. Don't be part of the problem.

Quote: MathExtremist

For an example, take the time to read the Martingale thread where I explained to Exoter why the Martingale system doesn't alter the house edge of roulette. You think it does, and so do a lot of other people, and you're all wrong.

I never once said it alters the house edge. I said if you had an infinite bankroll and an unlimited bet spread it would work. Simple logic, if you are able to hold out until you win no matter what you will win, It is not really disputable that casinos limit spreads and will even prohibit team play to prohibit a way around spreads to protect themselves from this. Infinite money is not even needed, You could capitalize well enough that if you found an online casino with a $,01 minimum and no max all you would need do would be set a bot to bet the pass and martingale and just clean the place out. (assuming the casino was run square.) I know you will retort that at some point there will be 1,000 donts in a row, but I am talking street not theory. On the street the casino protects themselves with limits for a reason. Say whatever else you want, I am done discussing martingale at this point.

Quote:

For another example, though I'm not sure where you even start to disagree with the climate science, tell me on what basis you dispute the fact that CO2, CH4, and N2O levels are now higher than they have been at any other time during the previous 800,000 years (four times the span of humanity's existence):

Once again, we do not have accurate measurements even 150 years ago, much less from when humans were not even on earth yet. So I am not buying what they are selling. What did AMZN trade for in 1980 BTW? What did it trade at back then?

Quote:

You actually think that's what doing science is?

I think modern climate science is indeed a bunch of people who cannot make it in the real world so they work at a university and toe the line they are told to get more funding. Electricity, digital circuitry, and wireless data transmission were all made for the profit motive in the private market. They were all provable with actual results. Edison built his own lab, as did Bell Labs later.

Quote:

But now someone can spend a lifetime studying one topic and not come close to mastering it. But that's no excuse for your effusive and dripping disdain for those who dedicate their lives to such study with the aim of improving the human condition. Ask yourself what do you do to improve the human condition

Well, I improve the human condition many ways. I used to give people a healthier, pest-free environment. I have provided people with the services to get funds to buy homes. I have done research to help provide clean natural gas without risk of title to the driller. that is just the major things. I do this again by getting out on the street and hustling. Studying is nice, but you have to get out and produce.

Quote:

More importantly, you haven't undertaken such study, and what's worse, you don't trust those who have. You are in no position to challenge the work of a scientist who understands his topic while you do not.

Sorry, but YES I AM! I have educated myself and do all the time. You do not need a degree to know that we do not have temperature records even 200 years ago, Even high school science teaches the importance of good data gotten in the same way with the same methods, Based on this alone I do not trust it. Add in the money motivation of all who are pushing it from the government funded guy on a project to General Electric and any intelligent person should question every bit of it. Further add in how the side who believes just says "the debate is over" to the point of criminal prosecution and the alarm bells should deafen any thinking person.

Meanwhile you constantly retort "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD." Just remember who was saying that in the story. Remember who first gets sheared then slaughtered.

Quote: AZDuffman

I never once said [the Martingale] alters the house edge. I said if you had an infinite bankroll and an unlimited bet spread it would work.

We do not have accurate measurements even 150 years ago, much less from when humans were not even on earth yet. So I am not buying what they are selling.

I think modern climate science is indeed a bunch of people who cannot make it in the real world...

Studying is nice, but you have to get out and produce.

I have educated myself and do all the time. You do not need a degree to know that we do not have temperature records even 200 years ago, Even high school science teaches the importance of good data gotten in the same way with the same methods, Based on this alone I do not trust it.

You know, I love discovering that I'm wrong. It means I'm about to learn something, and I love learning. I owe much of my career to my penchant for autodidactism, and I don't expect that will change long after I retire.

But you're different. You only pay lip service to self-education but you can't (or won't) admit when you're wrong. You think that the Martingale "works", but "the Martingale works" and "the Martingale has a positive house edge" actually mean the same thing. You don't comprehend that, and even if you read it (as you just did, and as you should have in other threads on this forum in order to educate yourself), you'd reject that fact in favor of your folksy intuition. And on this forum, no less, dedicated as it is to making gamblers more intelligent. You can't admit when you're wrong.

And you can't admit that there are indeed ways to measure things that happened very long times ago. Archaeology is a valid science. So is glaciology, which is how we know what atmospheric levels and seasonal temperatures were tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Educate yourself:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
If you dispute the validity of glaciology, post a cogent criticism here. Demonstrate that your mastery of high school science invalidates that body of scientific work. For starters, explain how analyzing the gasses trapped at different ice core strata isn't "good data gotten in the same way with the same methods."

Or just dismiss it out of hand, without even reading up on the science, because you prefer your folksy intuition to critical thinking. You can't admit when you're wrong.

The real problem is that you believe thinking work is not productive work. "Getting out and producing," as you say, encompasses not just laying rat traps or drilling for gas, but developing the chemicals in those rat traps (chemistry) and the metal alloys used in the drills (metallurgy). You owe your livelihood to the same scientists you detest. But you won't even admit that.

Quote: Socrates, Plato's Apology

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

Quote: MathExtremist

And you can't admit that there are indeed ways to measure things that happened very long times ago. Archaeology is a valid science. So is glaciology, which is how we know what atmospheric levels and seasonal temperatures were tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Educate yourself:)

I have educated myself on this. Through educating myself I also know that it is an estimate. It cannot get precise to 1C, which is what we are talking about in terms of climate change. A clock with no second hand lets me see the time, but if I need to time things to the second the accuracy is not there. Even with using glaciers or archeology it only gives us data in the immediate area, leaving most of the surface unmeasured. (HINT: Most of the surface of the earth is ocean, where there are very few glaciers. If you are from Rio Linda, that is using humor to prove a point.)

What you cannot admit is that a layman can bring up valid challenges. You are enamored with paper one has on their wall saying they know more than you, so you turn off any thinking towards disbelief. I have seen many times the old-timer who doesn't have that lambskin but knows way, way more than anyone gives him credit for.

Quote:

Or just dismiss it out of hand, without even reading up on the science, because you prefer your folksy intuition to critical thinking. You can't admit when you're wrong.

Actually, I am the one doing critical thinking. You are the one telling me to shut up and listen to someone else.

Quote:

The real problem is that you believe thinking work is not productive work. "Getting out and producing," as you say, encompasses not just laying rat traps or drilling for gas, but developing the chemicals in those rat traps (chemistry) and the metal alloys used in the drills (metallurgy). You owe your livelihood to the same scientists you detest. But you won't even admit that.

I do not detest scientists in general. I detest the folks who say "the science is settled, now give away your money and freedom" when the science is far from settled. I detest junk science, which I believe global warming to be, I detest the folks who say that there cannot possibly be intelligent design in evolution because they just say it cannot happen then say they are the ones with an open mind. I respect the scientists who make a great discovery.

Global Warming belief has really become kind of a religion for atheists. What is funny is all they hate about religion is exactly how they act in their defense of their belief. And yes, I mean you included, based on just this thread alone.

Quote: AZDuffman

intelligent design

Well, there it is. Your profound distaste for science stems from the fact that you don't actually know what science is and is not.

Intelligent design is not science. It is religious dogma and circular reasoning.

Until you understand why, there is no point trying to discuss why you're wrong about what glaciology can measure (and therefore why you're unqualified to criticize its conclusions) or why you're wrong about the Martingale "working."

Quote: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called “intelligent design theory” makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Your version of intelligent design theory is precisely as testable as the pastafarian origin story. Either you must accept that both are equally valid scientific theories or you must reject both as being outside the scope of science.

Quote: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
...
For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

If you perceive a legitimate distinction between your favored version of intelligent design and the more amusing version involving a pasta-based deity, please enlighten us.

Quote: MathExtremist

Science is only wrong in hindsight, with the benefit of additional information that was previously unknown. That's the beauty of the scientific method and peer review: hypotheses are testable and disprovable, and the best theory is the one that most fully explains observations without yet having been disproven. Any contrary evidence is capable of disproving a theory.

Agreed. But a big part of the problem stems from attributing the God-like authority of physicians to, say, proclaimed experts in other fields of science and the resulting innate reluctance to challenge or even question methods and results. Many times in just the health field we have seen this such as with the cause of Legionnaires' Disease and the denial of a genetic component in starting melanoma cancers. Not to the mention more far-fetched fields like anthropology (the truth about "Coming of Age in Samoa") and the de-planetizing of Pluto after decades and decades of catechism-like repetition.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Agreed. But a big part of the problem stems from attributing the God-like authority of physicians to, say, proclaimed experts in other fields of science and the resulting innate reluctance to challenge or even question methods and results. Many times in just the health field we have seen this such as with the cause of Legionnaires' Disease and the denial of a genetic component in starting melanoma cancers. Not to the mention more far-fetched fields like anthropology (the truth about "Coming of Age in Samoa") and the de-planetizing of Pluto after decades and decades of catechism-like repetition.

Absolutely -- science is often messy, and we're only human and therefore prone to sentimentality. That explains the Pluto issue. Eris travels closer to Earth than Pluto only for a tiny fraction of its orbit and was about twice as far away from Earth when Pluto was discovered. If we had spotted Eris in 1930 when Pluto was discovered, we'd have grown up with 10 planets, not 8 and two TNOs.

I want the status quo to be questioned. But I want it done properly, with legitimate verifiable methods rather than guesswork, hunches, and uneducated intuition. Our intuition was useful when we were foraging for berries, hunting elk, and escaping from snakes or bears. That same intuition is generally really, really bad at ascertaining whether you're making a fair wager or evaluating complex systems like the climate. Especially if you already have a desired result in mind and you're only willing to consider evidence that supports your theory. That's why maintaining the scientific method is so important. When following evidence-based science, you don't get to throw out evidence just because it doesn't fit your favorite theory or desired conclusion. The verification of Einstein's theory of gravity waves a few months ago (https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211) would never have happened if astronomers simply used their intuition. That was a rigorous, painstaking, complex undertaking that goes far beyond just folksy "common sense." Nothing about gravity waves is common sense or intuitive, but there they are nonetheless.

Quote: MathExtremist

Well, there it is. Your profound distaste for science stems from the fact that you don't actually know what science is and is not.

Intelligent design is not science. It is religious dogma and circular reasoning.

<snip>

Time to block the thread. You say I "distrust science." Not the case. I just cannot deal with "believers" like you who demand I just listen. Demand I have an "open mind" while theirs is as closed as the doors on Fort Knox. Who are so used to being around people who always agree with everything that when challenged they cannot defend their point without saying, "well, you just do not understand" then expect me to giggle and agree as if I am the dumb blonde on the sitcom. See, I am not about to start giggling and just go along, I will keep my mind open, PM me when you are ready to show me how you put two lifeless rocks into a box and come back a week later and they had puppies. Then show me how when you let a fish out of water long enough it starts walking around. Or if you hold a ground animal underwater long enough it will grow gills (choice there is yours.)

When you show me some of that, then you can validate your claim that intelligent design is impossible. Until then you are preaching to your own choir. Sorry.

I read through this: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

It seems like it described the method used as well as data. What I'd like to understand is how is the data verified as accurate?

I don't know about the whole Climate Change thing, over my head.

But I do believe the glaciers are melting,

jimmyFocker just thawed out of the ice, after like forever ;-)

Quote: Socrates, Plato's Apology

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Donald Rumsfeld

Quote: AZDuffman

PM me when you are ready to show me how you put two lifeless rocks into a box and come back a week later and they had puppies.

... your claim that intelligent design is impossible.

It's obviously impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone whose idea of legitimate scientific debate is to rely on a nonsensical scenario in which rocks can have puppies. Not only do you not understand the essence of science, you don't even understand how to understand it. That's fine, after this I won't waste my time further. But if you want proof of evolution, look no further than the impending global pandemic due to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, where 10,000,000 people per year are expected to die from what were previously-curable bacterial diseases.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/in-2050-superbugs-may-kill-1-person-every-3-seconds-report-warns/

I did not claim that intelligent design was impossible, I claim it is untestable. I cannot rigorously examine, and therefore cannot disprove, the theory that the universe and all that is in it was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster who controls all that we see and feel. And neither can you. That puts it squarely outside the realm of science. And that theory is just as unscientific as the theory that the same universe and its contents were created by an evil computer simulation that is using human beings as batteries. And *that* theory is just as unscientific as the theory that the sun is pulled across the sky by an invisible chariot being pulled by invisible horses driven by Apollo. Be careful how much you rely upon divine explanations for the observable world, or your chosen deity may suffer the same fate as Apollo when the science catches up. Nobody worships Apollo anymore because they don't need to. Is that what you want to happen to God? Really, this is an important theological point and why the creationist movement is so misguided and self-defeating. Talk to your priest or minister about why it's important to keep the question of God out of the realm of the disprovable.

To conclude with the same sort of folksy logic that mirrors your own, think about what kind of sadistic, twisted intelligence would have intentionally designed the male reproductive system by running the ureter through the prostate instead of around it. And then you can curse that intelligence when you go to the doctor to get a refill of your BPH medicine so you can sleep through the night without having to get up to urinate.

Quote: RS

I read through this: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

It seems like it described the method used as well as data. What I'd like to understand is how is the data verified as accurate?

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

Reading that, I have a better understanding of how it works. Although it seems like they can't get the co2 levels and whatnot for a specific year. Something about the air trapped in the ice being affected (effected?) by the current climate for some years to come. In other words, it seems like the data gathered is not specific to a specific year, but the data (co2 levels) collected is somewhat averaged together with other years close by.

And this begs the question of outliers, or rather, super high or super low levels of co2. The graph on the NASA.../evidence page shows levels have never gone "above this line". But, the super high or low levels wouldn't even be seen or graphed.

It would be like measuring the average depth of a river, every 500 feet, and claiming at no point is it more than 100 feet deep. Then at one current point, take a specific (non-averaged) depth of the river, find it's 200 feet deep, then report there's a huge issue. While, in reality, there could be numerous points in the river with depths of 200 feet, while no average-depth was at 200 feet.

I'm not saying the data is averaged by the scientists, I'm saying the data is averaged due to the way the environment traps the air in the ice/air bubble.