Biden tests positive for COVID

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychodave
  • Start date Start date
Justin Bailey said:
My point has always been to follow the data not the story. That is the science.
You only care about the story. That isn’t science.
Click to expand...
No! The study found that the earth temp increased when emissions decreased. That's what the data says. The study further shows how it was related to the decrease in reflective aerosols. You keep repeating that the study doesn't prove that greenhouse gasses don't increase earth temps, which I never argued. That's your strawman bro. You are biased to ignore the "counterintuitive" fact that reducing emissions has (at least in the short-term) the exact opposite effect than generally claimed, and instead cling to yet another prediction that it will eventually get cooler.
 
Last edited:
acceptance said:
No! The study found that the earth temp increased when emissions decreased. That's what the data says. The study further shows how it was related to the decrease in reflective aerosols. You keep repeating that the study doesn't prove that greenhouse gasses don't increase earth temps, which I never argued. That's your strawman bro. You are biased to ignore the "counterintuitive" fact that reducing emissions has (at least in the short-term) the exact opposite effect than generally claimed, and instead cling to yet another prediction that it will eventually get cooler.
Click to expand...

Yes you did argue that greenhouse gases don’t warm the earth. That’s what you mistakenly posted the study to begin with lol. I still don’t know what you mean by “bad data” if you also think it tells exactly what happened.
If you just said “hey, look at this interesting article!” I would have just agreed and that would have been the end of it, but you used it as some lame duck attempt to disprove something. How long has it been since you initially posted it? A week? You didn’t realize it differentiated gases from aerosols until I pointed it out to you yesterday. That’s why you are trying to re-explain yourself now lol.


I’m not ignoring the temporary cooling of the earth you keep bringing up. I even said studies have been done before the lock down that theorized the effect of aerosols. This study was done to confirm them. But even the study itself says that it is not enough data to definitively say that the cooling was because of the emissions, as the variance was less than normal variation in temperature.

Just admit you misunderstood the study and go back to studying shadows on moon photos or something
 
acceptance said:
No! The study found that the earth temp increased when emissions decreased. That's what the data says. The study further shows how it was related to the decrease in reflective aerosols. You keep repeating that the study doesn't prove that greenhouse gasses don't increase earth temps, which I never argued. That's your strawman bro. You are biased to ignore the "counterintuitive" fact that reducing emissions has (at least in the short-term) the exact opposite effect than generally claimed, and instead cling to yet another prediction that it will eventually get cooler.
Click to expand...
Dude, quit wasting your time. He will simply just talk you in circles. Same way your wife does. It’s his thing.
 
Justin Bailey said:
Yes you did argue that greenhouse gases don’t warm the earth. That’s what you mistakenly posted the study to begin with lol. I still don’t know what you mean by “bad data” if you also think it tells exactly what happened.
If you just said “hey, look at this interesting article!” I would have just agreed and that would have been the end of it, but you used it as some lame duck attempt to disprove something. How long has it been since you initially posted it? A week? You didn’t realize it differentiated gases from aerosols until I pointed it out to you yesterday. That’s why you are trying to re-explain yourself now lol.


I’m not ignoring the temporary cooling of the earth you keep bringing up. I even said studies have been done before the lock down that theorized the effect of aerosols. This study was done to confirm them. But even the study itself says that it is not enough data to definitively say that the cooling was because of the emissions, as the variance was less than normal variation in temperature.

Just admit you misunderstood the study and go back to studying shadows on moon photos or something
Click to expand...
Jesus christ dude, I just told you I said "bad data" in the colloquial sense. Are you okay bro? I don't believe that greenhouse gases warm the earth, I think they are the effect of a warming earth. But that's not what I argued when I posted the study anyways so you are just making shit up now. And you're ignoring what I wrote: the study directly contradicts and disproves that reducing emissions will cool the Earth, as is generally claimed — at least in the short term. You say you're not ignoring the "temporary" (theorized to be so) cooling, but you are. As I keep saying, it is the best, most real world experiment you could ever hope for, and it doesn't support the idea that limiting emissions will cool the earth.
 
acceptance said:
Jesus christ dude, I just told you I said "bad data" in the colloquial sense. Are you okay bro? I don't believe that greenhouse gases warm the earth, I think they are the effect of a warming earth. But that's not what I argued when I posted the study anyways so you are just making shit up now. And you're ignoring what I wrote: the study directly contradicts and disproves that reducing emissions will cool the Earth, as is generally claimed — at least in the short term. You say you're not ignoring the "temporary" (theorized to be so) cooling, but you are. As I keep saying, it is the best, most real world experiment you could ever hope for, and it doesn't support the idea that limiting emissions will cool the earth.
Click to expand...

But that is your bias and story behind it. You can say colloquial all you want but it still doesn’t help me understand how it isn’t contradictory.
You can acknowledge that it was a great real world scenario, but you can’t accept that had to use models because actual observations were too small to record and even the models resulted in data that wasn’t sufficient to make the claims you are making. That’s why the people in the study didn’t make the same claim as you are.
I’m not sure the “counterintuitive” phrase you keep quoting was even in the study, it was most likely the words of the author reporting the story and not the researchers. I’ll happily admit I’m mistaken if you can show me where it is said though. It would be surprising to me if a researcher said it.

This is what happens when you read an article in hopes that it proves you are right instead of reading an article to learn what it says.
 
Justin Bailey said:
Your addition to this has been to “follow the money” even though you don’t know who paid for it or why they would. So yes, right it is. Anything but the data.
Click to expand...
Data can be manipulated. Funding is static. That’s your whole spiel Dan. You claim all these things are facts based on data. But only data magically from people who agree with you. There’s that confirmation bias thing again.
 
Floyd Eye said:
Data can be manipulated. Funding is static. That’s your whole spiel Dan. You claim all these things are facts based on data. But only data magically from people who agree with you. There’s that confirmation bias thing again.
Click to expand...

Raw data is not manipulated. It can be to tell a story, but that’s when it stops being raw. that is why I always stress to look at the data and not the headline. That’s the difference between the first link to the study and the 2nd. The first was someone else’s take on it, and that’s what he formed his opinions on. The 2nd was the raw study that went against pretty much every point he thought he was making.

there is no data to refute what greenhouse gases do. That is why they came up with a name for them. It wasn’t some lefty agenda, they noticed what they did, then named them after what they do. It’s as simple as that.
 
Justin Bailey said:
But that is your bias and story behind it. You can say colloquial all you want but it still doesn’t help me understand how it isn’t contradictory.
You can acknowledge that it was a great real world scenario, but you can’t accept that had to use models because actual observations were too small to record and even the models resulted in data that wasn’t sufficient to make the claims you are making. That’s why the people in the study didn’t make the same claim as you are.
I’m not sure the “counterintuitive” phrase you keep quoting was even in the study, it was most likely the words of the author reporting the story and not the researchers. I’ll happily admit I’m mistaken if you can show me where it is said though. It would be surprising to me if a researcher said it.

This is what happens when you read an article in hopes that it proves you are right instead of reading an article to learn what it says.
Click to expand...
Final time: bad data = unhelpful data for the idea that reducing emissions reduces earth temps. Yes, they made the same claim as me:

"COVID-19 induced lockdowns led to reductions in aerosol and precursor emissions, chiefly soot or black carbon and sulfate (SO4). This is found to reduce the human caused aerosol cooling: creating a small net warming effect on the earth in spring 2020."
 
acceptance said:
Final time: bad data = unhelpful data for the idea that reducing emissions reduces earth temps. Yes, they ultimately made the same claim as me:

"COVID-19 induced lockdowns led to reductions in aerosol and precursor emissions, chiefly soot or black carbon and sulfate (SO4). This is found to reduce the human caused aerosol cooling: creating a small net warming effect on the earth in spring 2020."
Click to expand...


But that is what I mean about reading to prove yourself right vs reading to learn. What you posted was not the conclusion of the study. That is just one sentence you picked out that works for you.
 
Justin Bailey said:
But that is what I mean about reading to prove yourself right vs reading to learn. What you posted was not the conclusion of the study. That is just one sentence you picked out that works for you.
Click to expand...
Their conclusion is their conclusion. Your's is yours and mine is mine. You can say we're all biased if you want but the facts are the facts bro.
 
acceptance said:
Their conclusion is their conclusion. Your's is yours and mine is mine. You can say we're all biased if you want but the facts are the facts bro.
Click to expand...

But what you saying is not factual. That’s why the people who did the study, the people that have everything to gain from agreeing with you, are not agreeing with you lol.

That’s how facts work. Some aerosols have a cooling effect on the earth. That is a fact. Saying the earth is warmer with less pollution is not a fact. Even if they found this study to be conclusive, it would take a lot more than one study to make it a fact.

The difference being greenhouse gases have thousand of studies over 100+ years, and they all show the same thing. That’s how things become facts.
 
Justin Bailey said:
But what you saying is not factual. That’s why the people who did the study, the people that have everything to gain from agreeing with you, are not agreeing with you lol.
Click to expand...
WTF you mean it's not factual? They wrote it FFS. Whether they agree with my conclusion is another matter and is subjective. Sure, you can parse the significance of the net warming effect, the reasons why and the likelihood of future cooling, but the facts (that the earth warmed when emissions decreased) are the facts, pending future studies at least.
 
acceptance said:
WTF you mean it's not factual? They wrote it FFS. Whether they agree with my conclusion is another matter and is subjective. Sure, you can parse the significance of the net warming effect, the reasons why and the likelihood of future cooling, but the facts (that the earth warmed when emissions decreased) are the facts, pending more studies at least.
Click to expand...

But to say that it is in fact because of reduced pollution is incorrect. The study agrees.
To say it happened while pollution was reduced is ok. I know it seems like splitting hairs because you don’t give a shit, but that is why when something is a fact, it means it’s a fact. It has gone through all the hairsplitting bullshit over and over again and always came out to be factual.

this is the core of why I tell you to stay in your lane. It’s not because I think I’m smarter than you, it’s because you make up your own rules to talk about stuff that already has rules.
 
Justin Bailey said:
But to say that it is in fact because of reduced pollution is incorrect. The study agrees.
To say it happened while pollution was reduced is ok. I know it seems like splitting hairs because you don’t give a shit, but that is why when something is a fact, it means it’s a fact. It has gone through all the hairsplitting bullshit over and over again and always came out to be factual.

this is the core of why I tell you to stay in your lane. It’s not because I think I’m smarter than you, it’s because you make up your own rules to talk about stuff that already has rules.
Click to expand...
I keep saying reduced emissions, which to your point includes both gases and particulates. I'm not making up any rules. I think the study has accomplished exactly what it was probably intended to do, which is parse data and misdirect attention from the most obviously significant takeaway.
 
Keep in mind future studies could find a larger effect, if anyone dares study it or has the funds to do it independently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 
Back
Top