Biden tests positive for COVID

NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
Dan is pretty much akin to a walmart greeter teaching us about modern computational architectures.

"I don't see the relevancy of basic methods used in climate studies and what that has to do with climate studies."
"I have no response because I don't know what the fuck I'm actually talking about, so you're just bitter"
"I use words I learned on wordle with my pedo pal to make me seem big brain now."
"I have zero knowledge, background, or education in the field, but I right, you wrong, just see this study I didn't read."
Click to expand...

lol now why on earth would I think you are bitter?
 
Justin Bailey said:
I like that you are trying new tactics, but they are getting worse and worse lol
Click to expand...
Dude, you're like on a different planet. I explained and justified what I wrote. You don't like it and can't otherwise respond or you would be right now instead of making stupid comments and LOL's
 
acceptance said:
Dude, you're like on a different planet. I explained and justified what I wrote. You don't like it and can't otherwise respond or you would be right now instead of making stupid comments and LOL's
Click to expand...
There is nothing more I couple possibly say about it. Your opinion is that you don’t even care what the researchers themselves concluded from the study lol. What else could I possibly say? But yea sure, I’m the egotistical one that is in his own reality
 
Justin Bailey said:
There is nothing more I couple possibly say about it. Your opinion is that you don’t even care what the researchers themselves concluded from the study lol. What else could I possibly say? But yea sure, I’m the egotistical one that is in his own reality
Click to expand...
My opinion is that I differ on what I would emphasize of the findings. Yes, I think it’s safer to highlight what was actually found rather than what is predicted.
 
acceptance said:
My opinion is that I differ on what I would emphasize of the findings. Yes, I think it’s safer to highlight what was actually found rather than what is predicted.
Click to expand...

every part of that phrase goes against the most basic scientific testing. You have to understand that. Do you?

You aren’t supposed to “emphasize” any part of the findings more than others. That is the most classic example of bias.
 
Justin Bailey said:
every part of that phrase goes against the most basic scientific testing. You have to understand that. Do you?

You aren’t supposed to “emphasize” any part of the findings more than others. That is the most classic example of bias.
Click to expand...
They’re emphasizing “But it’s still gonna get cooler” and I’m emphasizing, “It got warmer.” If you want to emphasize a hypothetical over the actual results fine, but that’s biased, because actual results are stronger than predictions, dumbass.
 
And if and when another study comes out saying lockdowns eventually brought about cooler earth temps, then we can parse and scrutinize the language and methodology of the study like you’re doing now.
 
acceptance said:
They’re emphasizing “But it’s still gonna get cooler” and I’m emphasizing, “It got warmer.” If you want to emphasize a hypothetical over the actual results fine, but that’s biased, because actual results are stronger than predictions, dumbass.
Click to expand...
They aren’t emphasizing that at all. They stated it to be thorough. You didn’t even notice it until i pointed it out to you a week later.
They gathered data, they studied it, they found it wasn’t sufficient to make a definitive claim, and that was it. How it should be.
 
acceptance said:
And if and when another study comes out saying lockdowns eventually brought about cooler earth temps, then we can parse and scrutinize the language and methodology of the study like you’re doing now.
Click to expand...

You are the only one scrutinizing the language bro. I am just repeating their findings
 
I
acceptance said:
Okay fine, I’ll give you that. But nonetheless that’s what they found.
Click to expand...

Took ya long enough. That’s why it is your bias that regardless of any scientific consensus you are going to say that it’s a fact.
That isn’t how facts work.

Meanwhile there is certainly a consensus on what greenhouse gases do.

I am not the one that makes up his own reality here
 
Justin Bailey said:
I


Took ya long enough. That’s why it is your bias that regardless of any scientific consensus you are going to say that it’s a fact.
That isn’t how facts work.

Meanwhile there is certainly a consensus on what greenhouse gases do.

I am not the one that makes up his own reality here
Click to expand...
Tell me, what do you have that’s better than a “non-definitive” finding in a real-life scenario?
 
Justin Bailey said:
I


Took ya long enough. That’s why it is your bias that regardless of any scientific consensus you are going to say that it’s a fact.
That isn’t how facts work.

Meanwhile there is certainly a consensus on what greenhouse gases do.

I am not the one that makes up his own reality here
Click to expand...
You know how else facts don't work. Scientific consensus without actual proof. Renowned "Experts" have gotten so much shit wrong it isn't funny. They wanted to set off nukes at the poles in the 70s. Just because some group of elitist assholes, like Fauci for instance, who think they're the smartest mother fuckers in the world, predict this or that will happen, that doesn't make it a fucking fact.
 
Floyd Eye said:
You know how else facts don't work. Scientific consensus without actual proof. Renowned "Experts" have gotten so much shit wrong it isn't funny. They wanted to set off nukes at the poles in the 70s. Just because some group of elitist assholes, like Fauci for instance, who think they're the smartest mother fuckers in the world, predict this or that will happen, that doesn't make it a fucking fact.
Click to expand...
Anytime someone is declared an expert it always causes me to put my guard up to protect me from a pasture chock full of bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top