Russians Behind DNC attack!

[Jorgam]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Clintons are claiming russians have been hacking and releasing information about emails.
https://www.rt.com/usa/353107-russia...d-dnc-clinton/
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Russia is the scapegoat for democrats now?

Please vote for trump.

Did I do Off Topic right? Discuss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well.. it can't be the democrats fault! Nothing is ever, ever the fault of a liberal, not even writing those emails in the first place. Obviously it is all a conspiracy to defame poor innocent Hillary. Those Russian scoundrels!

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting to see the jump in Trump's poll position the last week after being thoroughly trounced in virtually every GE poll vs Hillary prior to that. Guess the Cruz supporters have stopped pretending they'd support Hillary now that the Cruz campaign can finally be put to rest. Will be interesting to see what happens with his numbers following the DNC now.

convention bump. won't last. hillary gets one too.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let that seep in how retarded that is and how embarrassingly scientifically illiterate you are.

You are the one embarrassing yourself here, pal. Global warming is falsifiable, but anthropogenic global warming is not. You can't assign causes without a control group, especially since if you look at the temperature history of the Earth you can see that it varies wildly. Also I think virtually all inductive economics is pure junk, so I have no idea where you got that.

Originally Posted by Lune

Falsifiable Premise #1. Do CO2 and other gasses increase the temperature of the Earth? Yes.

This is in fact not falsifiable by the same argument. And in any case, it's not that simple. CO2 has a relatively limited effect on radiative forcing, and that effect is logarithmic, so it increases very slowly. The theory of AGW rests on the premise that this very small increase in temperature will heat the oceans, thus sending large amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere. I'm certainly not saying this impossible, but the atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. It's worth nothing that global CO2 has increased by 10% over the past 20 years, while global temperatures haven't changed much.

Anyway, it may surprise you to learn that I am a pretty big environmentalist. I would love to see more mass transit, more solar cells, less global trade, and a more geographically homogeneous society. The problem, though, is that even if America cut our greenhouse gas emissions to 0, it would only reduce total emissions by about 15%. China is the biggest offender here. So to actually attack greenhouse gas emissions we'd need a world government, and the potential for abuse there is far higher than any possible global warming benefits.

P.S. I mostly think of Trump as a master persuader due to Scott Adams' series of posts. He (or his campaign) have performed some very interesting linguistic jiu jitsu over the past year. Hillary was embarrassing herself there for a while, but evidentially has finally hired someone good recently.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What ? bush had 8 years to catch BinLaden. He failed.

Last I heard he was hanging out at Martha's Vineyard, enjoying beer summits and collecting autographs from former and present presidents [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Trung thinks we don't own these guys .. well they [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Global warming is falsifiable, but anthropogenic global warming is not. You can't assign causes without a control group

What control group are you using to highlight the cause of global warming, that you can't use for anthropogenic global warming? Our emissions can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, the concentration of gasses can be measured accurately, and the models for the way these gasses behave are well understood.

Think about this: Watson, Crick, and Franklin used X-ray crystallography to observe the helical structure of DNA. What causes the helical structure of DNA? Well, we know it is due to the structure and properties of the molecules on the backbone of the DNA, and the nitrogenous bases that connect the two backbones-- their charge distribution and orientation of their bonds contorts the molecule a certain way. So which is it? What's the 'control group' that allows us to know this? Is this not falsifiable? What if we discovered that a series of previously unobserved structural proteins were holding the helix in place?

What if we discovered that it wasn't humans that were heating the atmosphere, but rather some previously unknown tectonic mechanism that was releasing billions of tons of methane and other gasses into the atmosphere that we had somehow missed?

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

especially since if you look at the temperature history of the Earth you can see that it varies wildly. Also I think virtually all inductive economics is pure junk, so I have no idea where you got that.

In recorded history it has rarely varied as wildly as it is varying (toward higher temperatures) right now, and it coincides with increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is in fact not falsifiable by the same argument. And in any case, it's not that simple. CO2 has a relatively limited effect on radiative forcing, and that effect is logarithmic, so it increases very slowly. The theory of AGW rests on the premise that this very small increase in temperature will heat the oceans, thus sending large amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere. I'm certainly not saying this impossible, but the atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. It's worth nothing that global CO2 has increased by 10% over the past 20 years, while global temperatures haven't changed much.

CO2 is far from being the only greenhouse gas, and the vast majority of the increasing heat is being absorbed by the oceans, where each quanta of heat does not contribute to global land temperatures on a 1:1 basis. There are also plenty of positive and negative feedback mechanisms that have been accounted for.

[Trungep99]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Last I heard he was hanging out at Martha's Vineyard, enjoying beer summits and collecting autographs from former and present presidents [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Trung thinks we don't own these guys .. well they [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I vaguely even remember Bush once stating he stopped looking specifically just for BinLaden. Listen 9/11 was tragic and within my skyline. I was pissed it took so long to kill the bastard. I'm happy Obamas administration did it.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What control group are you using to highlight the cause of global warming, that you can't use for anthropogenic global warming?

There is no control group, ergo you cannot know the cause inductively. We know the earth has gotten warmer over the past 150 years, we just don't know why.

Originally Posted by Lune

Think about this: Watson, Crick, and Franklin used X-ray crystallography to observe the helical structure of DNA. What's the 'control group' that allows us to know this?

The other molecules that were placed into the machine that produced a different pattern.

Originally Posted by Lune

In recorded history it has rarely varied as wildly as it is varying (toward higher temperatures) right now, and it coincides with increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

I've seen some temperature data and I didn't find it very convincing, but you are welcome to post some more as long as it's more than the past 150 years. I'm always willing to update my opinion based on new evidence.

Originally Posted by Lune

There are also plenty of positive and negative feedback mechanisms that have been accounted for.

So if you agree that the atmosphere is a tremendously complex, chaotic system with many positive and negative feedback loops, why are you confident in our ability to predict it?

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I vaguely even remember Bush once stating he stopped looking specifically just for BinLaden. Listen 9/11 was tragic and within my skyline. I was pissed it took so long to kill the bastard. I'm happy Obamas administration did it.

Bush knew that the Saudi government was behind 9/11 (it's in the recently released 28 pages).

[feanan]

Good thing Emperor Bush did all that on his own.

Oh, no wait, most democrats and republicans went along with it also.

[Nihilist_santa]

Guys whatever you do dont investigate the mysterious death of this DNC staffer. He was robbed but nothing was taken. It was clearly russian hackers and not a DNC leaker.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...386316391.html