OT: I’m bored...any flat earthers???

[dukedevilz]

So the way I am reading that first link...

Cook said that 97% of the abstracts that took a position on the theory of AGW said that it was "mainly" caused by humans, but that only 33% of the abstracts overall even TOOK a position in the first place, meaning that, in reality, only about 32% of the abstracts specifically said that AGW is "mainly" man-caused.

But the general population took that 97% number to mean that 97% of THE TOTAL NUMBER of abstracts took the stance that AGW is man-caused?

That second part is interesting, though.

When they then had the actual AUTHORS of the paper analyze their OWN abstracts, 65% of them felt their papers took a stance on AGW, and 97% of those people agreed that mankind is "mainly" causing AGW, which would leave you with roughly 64% of scientists in the entire study believing that AGW is "mainly" man-caused.

As for the second link yeah, I think I said that earlier? The issue is "MAIN" cause of AGW. But that does NOT discount that 97% of the papers cited DO say that mankind is A cause of AGW. And hey, if 97% of scientists think that mankind at least playing SOME part in AGW, and roughly 64% think we are the MAIN cause of AGW... that seems relatively important.

If you take out the 7,930 articles which expressed no opinion, you're left with 4,014. The number of level 3 articles, implicit endorsement, was identified as 2,910. This means that 72.5% of the responses were labeled under implicit endorsement. I can't take the 97% figure seriously if 72.5% of them "implicitly endorse" AGW. Now, for the record, I'm not so much a climate-change denier as I am climate-change material impact denier. I mean, when I see the temperature going up .001 degrees a year, I'm not overly concerned. When I hear the sea levels have risen 7.5 inches since 1870 (EPA) and I read that if all the glaciers were to melt, the sea levels would rise by 230 feet, I'm not exactly troubled. All else being equal, I can extrapolate that about 99.73% percent of the glaciers are still intact. When I read stuff like that, I'm not overly concerned. Especially since climate is inherently cyclical. But spending $1-2 trillion a year to lower the global climate by 0.2 degrees Celsius is a bit troubling. It's fine that we don't see eye to eye on this. That happens. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it - and I'm not trying to win an argument, simply explaining that you can have rationale beliefs that differ. Not siding with Global Warming alarmists doesn't automatically mean you're misinformed... I think I've spent 200-300 hours studying this stuff. I prefer to form my own judgments from gathering as much information as possible. I'm not an expert, but I can form rational conclusions based on the data presented.

 

[DukeDenver]

Hey Denver, a question... since you are a scientist of some sort (feel free to correct me)... in your personal experience, how often do scientists do research with more attention to funding than on the actual results? That is a talking point I see reflected often... that scientists are often bought and paid for by grants and the like, and their results reflect that. Any personal experience there?

Yep, I am a Biologist, worked for USDA for a while am now at a University. Not many scientists do research or report data in the interest of a big third party, like Monsanto or the US government (although some at the highest levels certainly do take money from such places). 98% of scientists answer to a different type of pressure. I for example need to publish "high impact" stuff to keep my job or get promoted. So in my opinion, the problem of fudging data to fit a narrative is very real. The narrative most of us scientists are striving for however isn't one about proving global warming or validating vaccines. It's about supporting an accepted theme or making a splash with a new discovery. This type of high profile publication is our currency. One would hope that scientists behave ethically and don't make crap up, but it's almost impossible to not let your experiments be driven a little by expectations of outcome. If I'm trying to get hired at NOAA or at Harvard, it would benefit me more to publish in high impact journals. The way in to those journals is to prove something brand new. The more crystal clear the outcome, the better.

Like if I wanted to know why ZIka virus was all the sudden hurting babies, despite the virus being around since 1946, I might test the genes and how they've changed. If I found some likely targets but nothing conclusive, I might be tempted to spin my statistics to make it seem like I identified a specific gene so that I can title my work "Zika mutation responsible for microcephaly!"

 

[dukephysics]

Yep, I am a Biologist, worked for USDA for a while am now at a University. Not many scientists do research or report data in the interest of a big third party, like Monsanto or the US government (although some at the highest levels certainly do take money from such places). 98% of scientists answer to a different type of pressure. I for example need to publish "high impact" stuff to keep my job or get promoted. So in my opinion, the problem of fudging data to fit a narrative is very real. The narrative most of us scientists are striving for however isn't one about proving global warming or validating vaccines. It's about supporting an accepted theme or making a splash with a new discovery. This type of high profile publication is our currency. One would hope that scientists behave ethically and don't make crap up, but it's almost impossible to not let your experiments be driven a little by expectations of outcome. If I'm trying to get hired at NOAA or at Harvard, it would benefit me more to publish in high impact journals. The way in to those journals is to prove something brand new. The more crystal clear the outcome, the better.

Like if I wanted to know why ZIka virus was all the sudden hurting babies, despite the virus being around since 1946, I might test the genes and how they've changed. If I found some likely targets but nothing conclusive, I might be tempted to spin my statistics to make it seem like I identified a specific gene so that I can title my work "Zika mutation responsible for microcephaly!"

The problem is usually more subtle than you are describing. Stats are affected in, many times, unintentional ways that have real consequences. I heard this on maybe NPR the other day. Say I'm doing coin flipping experiment and I decide I'll flip a coin 10 times. Maybe I get heads 7 times and tails 3. I think "oh, I may be on to something here, but 2 extra heads out of 10 isn't statistically significant so I'll flip 4 more times." Maybe then I get 3 more heads and now I have 10 heads out of 14 and it is a statistically significant result. Boom. Publish the results. This was shown to be a real problem in psychology or some related field.
I didn't mean to twist the results. But what happened was it looked like I was onto something so I went forward with it. If I had flipped 5 heads and 5 tails I would have dropped the experiment and never published the results.
The difference with climate change research is the VOLUME of studies out there supporting the idea that humans are contributing. The backbone of good science is being able to reproduce the results, and many of these studies look at difference data (sea level, carbon levels, ...) and come to the same conclusion.

 

[TheDude1]

I don't think anyone here believes the Earth is flat, but for glo-bull warming? That's a different story not even worth debating.

“I worry that we might not be able to recover from this because all our greatest cities are on the oceans and water’s edges, historically for commerce and transportation.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible... By denying the evidence for climate change (we) will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children.” - Stephen Hawking

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” - the World Meteorological Organization

“Glo-bull warming? That's a different story not even worth debating.” - SoCal Dukie

If you take out the 7,930 articles which expressed no opinion, you're left with 4,014. The number of level 3 articles, implicit endorsement, was identified as 2,910. This means that 72.5% of the responses were labeled under implicit endorsement. I can't take the 97% figure seriously if 72.5% of them "implicitly endorse" AGW. Now, for the record, I'm not so much a climate-change denier as I am climate-change material impact denier. I mean, when I see the temperature going up .001 degrees a year, I'm not overly concerned. When I hear the sea levels have risen 7.5 inches since 1870 (EPA) and I read that if all the glaciers were to melt, the sea levels would rise by 230 feet, I'm not exactly troubled. All else being equal, I can extrapolate that about 99.73% percent of the glaciers are still intact. When I read stuff like that, I'm not overly concerned. Especially since climate is inherently cyclical. But spending $1-2 trillion a year to lower the global climate by 0.2 degrees Celsius is a bit troubling. It's fine that we don't see eye to eye on this. That happens. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it - and I'm not trying to win an argument, simply explaining that you can have rationale beliefs that differ. Not siding with Global Warming alarmists doesn't automatically mean you're misinformed... I think I've spent 200-300 hours studying this stuff. I prefer to form my own judgments from gathering as much information as possible. I'm not an expert, but I can form rational conclusions based on the data presented.

Sure, people can have rational belief that differ, and of COURSE it is okay to not see eye to eye. But those beliefs have to be based on something; they cannot just be a stance based on nothing... and more importantly, they cannot be inflexible; if something new is learned, we are obligated to change our beliefs. Too many people are unwilling to do this.

Btw, I hope you are right, and I am wrong!

Btw, where do you get the “99.73 of glaciers” stat?

Yep, I am a Biologist, worked for USDA for a while am now at a University. Not many scientists do research or report data in the interest of a big third party, like Monsanto or the US government (although some at the highest levels certainly do take money from such places). 98% of scientists answer to a different type of pressure. I for example need to publish "high impact" stuff to keep my job or get promoted. So in my opinion, the problem of fudging data to fit a narrative is very real. The narrative most of us scientists are striving for however isn't one about proving global warming or validating vaccines. It's about supporting an accepted theme or making a splash with a new discovery. This type of high profile publication is our currency. One would hope that scientists behave ethically and don't make crap up, but it's almost impossible to not let your experiments be driven a little by expectations of outcome. If I'm trying to get hired at NOAA or at Harvard, it would benefit me more to publish in high impact journals. The way in to those journals is to prove something brand new. The more crystal clear the outcome, the better.

Like if I wanted to know why ZIka virus was all the sudden hurting babies, despite the virus being around since 1946, I might test the genes and how they've changed. If I found some likely targets but nothing conclusive, I might be tempted to spin my statistics to make it seem like I identified a specific gene so that I can title my work "Zika mutation responsible for microcephaly!"

Interesting, and in many ways a shame... we would hope research isn’t about making a splash, but I suppose if that is the only way to continue being able to research... how do you break that cycle?

BTW... see, this I like. I enjoy going back and forth like this. Makes me read things and search for things and I learn new stuff, which is always a plus.

 

[FearTheBeard]

 

[Mpm277]

I read or heard somewhere that you would do more for the environment by driving a Hummer and giving up meat than by driving a Prius and continuing to eat meat.

Flat earth theory is super interesting, but only from an entertainment perspective.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Since you're bored and this thread sucks. Let's play a game of which one wood you do. 1 or 2.

 

[DukeDenver]

Since you're bored and this thread sucks. Let's play a game of which one wood you do. 1 or 2.

View embedded media

View embedded media

How insensitive of you! Can’t I choose both?

 

[TheDude1]

How insensitive of you! Can’t I choose both?

You can... but why would you?

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

How insensitive of you! Can’t I choose both?

Sure. But you have to place them in order.

You can... but why would you?

Why wouldn't you?

 

[Showenuff]

This thread seems to be coming up a little short.

 

[Showenuff]

Just played miniature golf with a midget....but he just called it golf.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

This thread seems to be coming up a little short.

 

[FearTheBeard]

Just played miniature golf with a midget....but he just called it golf.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Just played miniature golf with a midget....but he just called it golf.

 

[Showenuff]

Hahaha

 

[Alaskan_Assassin_21]

 

[SoCal_Dukie3]

If you take out the 7,930 articles which expressed no opinion, you're left with 4,014. The number of level 3 articles, implicit endorsement, was identified as 2,910. This means that 72.5% of the responses were labeled under implicit endorsement. I can't take the 97% figure seriously if 72.5% of them "implicitly endorse" AGW. Now, for the record, I'm not so much a climate-change denier as I am climate-change material impact denier. I mean, when I see the temperature going up .001 degrees a year, I'm not overly concerned. When I hear the sea levels have risen 7.5 inches since 1870 (EPA) and I read that if all the glaciers were to melt, the sea levels would rise by 230 feet, I'm not exactly troubled. All else being equal, I can extrapolate that about 99.73% percent of the glaciers are still intact. When I read stuff like that, I'm not overly concerned. Especially since climate is inherently cyclical. But spending $1-2 trillion a year to lower the global climate by 0.2 degrees Celsius is a bit troubling. It's fine that we don't see eye to eye on this. That happens. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it - and I'm not trying to win an argument, simply explaining that you can have rationale beliefs that differ. Not siding with Global Warming alarmists doesn't automatically mean you're misinformed... I think I've spent 200-300 hours studying this stuff. I prefer to form my own judgments from gathering as much information as possible. I'm not an expert, but I can form rational conclusions based on the data presented.

If you have 33 minutes to spare, check this out. This guy is pretty good, particularly when factoring in the government and finance/economics.

 

[dukedevilz]

Btw, where do you get the “99.73 of glaciers” stat?

I did the calculation myself. Just a simple extrapolation of 7.5 inches (rising sea levels since 1870) / 2760 inches (230 feet... total rise in sea level if all glaciers melted ) = .002718

1 - .002718 = .997272

More than likely, the numbers aren't exactly accurate. But all else being equal, it would be fairly close.

 

[skysdad]

One of th

This thread seems to be coming up a little short.[/QUOT


One of the thr regulars once called me a mental midget. He wasn't politically correct. He should have said a disturbed small person. OFC

 

[QC Dukie]

One of th

I wonder who you guys think is the most hated from our board on thr and why?

 

[skysdad]

I wonder who you guys think is the most hated from our board on thr and why?

I nominate myself just because I'm a mental midget, pos, a @#$% and other things that I just can't post due to the rules of this board. OFC

 

[QC Dukie]

I nominate myself just because I'm a mental midget, pos, a @#$% and other things that I just can't post due to the rules of this board. OFC

You and OADD are definitely top five I would guess.

 

[DukefanKY]

I rarely ever read anything over there, so I really don't know who from posts there much, but I would Dirts photoshop skills makes him not Berry popular there!!

 

[DukefanKY]

I'm telling you all, global warming is a myth....a hoax. You want me to back it up with research? Well, just look at the pic below.....its almost freakin' April and that is my front yard!!.....research done!! And I'm sick of this god forsaken state......its full of snow and uk fans!!

 

[Canadian Dukie]

I nominate myself just because I'm a mental midget, pos, a @#$% and other things that I just can't post due to the rules of this board. OFC

there are rules?? with some of the back and forth bickering here,you'd never know it

 

[dukedevilz]

I wonder who you guys think is the most hated from our board on thr and why?

Here are some of the top picks. Not sure about the order, though.

@OldasdirtDevil They don't like creativity, especially on gameday for UNC-Duke
@skysdad They probably think he's serious most of the time, not appreciating his dry humor; or they're overly sensitive to little jabs. Also, they apparently have a nickname for sky: The Salad Man. What is that all about??
@dukiejay I've seen his name come up a lot on THR. Not sure why, though. Anti-Duke mods, I suppose?
@Mark Gastineau There is some serious, serious hatred for Mark over at THR. They seem to think he's a level 17 jerk, but I'm pretty sure it stems from insecurity from not being able to retort back so quickly like MarkGastineau.
@DevilDJ He might as well be Dan Kane
@Showenuff Not sure where the vitriol comes from, but I did a quick search and noticed that our old pal, gunslingerdick, has created two whole threads venting about Show.

 

[Showenuff]

It used to be fun slapping those fools around back when you could post and punkass crybaby mods didn't ban you the second they found out you don't worship the baby blue god. Gunslingerisadick is much like several other posters over there, a long time ago , they were awesome posters, but then Geralds elbow severed all ties of rationale from that side.

 

[QC Dukie]

It used to be fun slapping those fools around back when you could post and punkass crybaby mods didn't ban you the second they found out you don't worship the baby blue god. Gunslingerisadick is much like several other posters over there, a long time ago , they were awesome posters, but then Geralds elbow severed all ties of rationale from that side.

Hansblow traveled before he ran into G’s elbow anyway.

 

[skysdad]

Here are some of the top picks. Not sure about the order, though.

@OldasdirtDevil They don't like creativity, especially on gameday for UNC-Duke
@skysdad They probably think he's serious most of the time, not appreciating his dry humor; or they're overly sensitive to little jabs. Also, they apparently have a nickname for sky: The Salad Man. What is that all about??
@dukiejay I've seen his name come up a lot on THR. Not sure why, though. Anti-Duke mods, I suppose?
@Mark Gastineau There is some serious, serious hatred for Mark over at THR. They seem to think he's a level 17 jerk, but I'm pretty sure it stems from insecurity from not being able to retort back so quickly like MarkGastineau.
@DevilDJ He might as well be Dan Kane
@Showenuff Not sure where the vitriol comes from, but I did a quick search and noticed that our old pal, gunslingerdick, has created two whole threads venting about Show.

Salad Man. Have no idea. I'm obese and there's plenty of them that have seen me. There is one guy that may post over there but I don't know his nickname. I used to work with him and he helped me set up my account. I think he's the on e that several years ago set up a bogus account and posted it on thr. Their mods caught it right away because it was set up at the same place as skysdad was and I really couldn't defend myself. I don't know for sure but 99% per cent sure. He's a pretty good guy and I think he meant it as a prank but it went south quickly and he has never admitted to me it was him. It's okay with me though because I know the truth. There's another friend who knows me and at the time I first started posting he ask me if I was skysdad. At the time he was a lurker only and it's been years since I've seen him. His twin daughters and my son were good friends in high school. He's a good guy also. Anyway this is a great opportunity to let you guys know that at one time I weighed about 268 pounds at my height of a about 5'8". That was six or 7 years ago. I am now down to around 232 fully dressed with shoes own. My Dr.says that's the way to do it. A little at time. The salad thing probably came up through dirt's photo shop of me, Heyman25, nivram and K-ville standing in front of the silent majority the night Austin Rivers broke their hearts. OFC

 

[TheDude1]

@DevilDJ is a great choice for most hated over there.

 

[pisgah101]

Salad Man. Have no idea. I'm obese and there's plenty of them that have seen me. There is one guy that may post over there but I don't know his nickname. I used to work with him and he helped me set up my account. I think he's the on e that several years ago set up a bogus account and posted it on thr. Their mods caught it right away because it was set up at the same place as skysdad was and I really couldn't defend myself. I don't know for sure but 99% per cent sure. He's a pretty good guy and I think he meant it as a prank but it went south quickly and he has never admitted to me it was him. It's okay with me though because I know the truth. There's another friend who knows me and at the time I first started posting he ask me if I was skysdad. At the time he was a lurker only and it's been years since I've seen him. His twin daughters and my son were good friends in high school. He's a good guy also. Anyway this is a great opportunity to let you guys know that at one time I weighed about 268 pounds at my height of a about 5'8". That was six or 7 years ago. I am now down to around 232 fully dressed with shoes own. My Dr.says that's the way to do it. A little at time. The salad thing probably came up through dirt's photo shop of me, Heyman25, nivram and K-ville standing in front of the silent majority the night Austin Rivers broke their hearts. OFC

Man congrats on the weight loss! That's awesome

 

[OldasdirtDevil]

I don't know who is the most 'hated' over at THR, but I think it's safe to say that every single one of us is despised for just being Blue Devil fans. And that's just fine imo.

OFC

 

[sgrooms]

I know that the OP question is designed to get people to think critically about something that is often assumed, but it seems like there are better ones to choose. Like, what is beyond the edge of the universe, or is there a smallest particle? Will Roy ever use all his timeouts?

Kyrie says that's what he was trying to do, but it also sounds like he genuinely doesn't know the Earth is round. It's awkward just reading it.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/movies/kyrie-irving-nba-celtics-earth.html

 

[DukeDenver]

Kyrie says that's what he was trying to do, but it also sounds like he genuinely doesn't know the Earth is round. It's awkward just reading it.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/movies/kyrie-irving-nba-celtics-earth.html

He doesn’t articulate what he means very well. He’d better make his point by conceding the Earth is most likely round, but propose some explaination for how we’ve gotten it wrong instead of just dancing around the topic with nonsense. He encourages others to “do their own research” but its clear he hasn’t done his own research on the matter. Like Kyrie, buddy, there are individuals who tie Go Pros to weather balloons and take video of the Earth’s curvature. There is no way for a satelite to orbit a flat Earth. Acknowledge the evidence of a round Earth or you look like a fool.

 

[springsportster]

I bet he doesn’t believe scientists about man’s impact on global warming, either...

There are actually many scientists who do not believe man has had a large impact on global warming. We have had, you know, major periods of extreme heat and extreme cold on earth long before cars existed. Google climategate and look at the "cooked numbers" by scientists trying to push an agenda. Just sayin....

 

[skysdad]

Man congrats on the weight loss! That's awesome

Down to 225 fully clothed. My pants are falling down and my belt was down it's last notch. Had to get a new belt and am wearing some pants I couldn't get into for a while. OFC

 

[DukefanKY]

Down to 225 fully clothed. My pants are falling down and my belt was down it's last notch. Had to get a new belt and am wearing some pants I couldn't get into for a while. OFC

How are you doing it sky? I have lost a good bit too. Started low carb on Jan. 11th and I believe some time in March, I added intermittent fasting, which was a tip from SoCal Dukie....anyway, I have gone from 254 down to 206 since Jan 11

 

[dukesince91]

How are you doing it sky? I have lost a good bit too. Started low carb on Jan. 11th and I believe some time in March, I added intermittent fasting, which was a tip from SoCal Dukie....anyway, I have gone from 254 down to 206 since Jan 11

Could you elaborate on your intermittent fasting?

 

[DukefanKY]

Could you elaborate on your intermittent fasting?

Basically you can only eat for 8 hours a day. For instance, I am currently working night shift. I leave for work at 2:00. I eat only between the hours of 2:00 pm and 10:00 pm. I don't eat anything else at all until 2:00 the next day. I am doing low carb as well, not eating any more than 20 grams per day. I'm doing both systems, so I can't really say which is responsible for most of the loss, but hey, 48 pounds from January 11th through May 24th.
What I am doing now is sticking to the diet through the week, and doing whatever I want on the weekend and see if I can just maintain where I am.
You can google why the intermittent fasting works. I don't remember!! I do understand the low carb theory though.