Off Topic - ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP - Forum

" deathflower wrote: Oh compromise work both way. It must (politically speaking from history's perspective), if it is to have any longevity and productivity. " deathflower wrote: Imagine how much Trump could accomplish if he sat down and tried to work with Nancy or Chuck and offered some compromise? Trump has made several overtures to them, and they have refused to even come sit at the table and discuss it. They were too worried about not being seen as resisting him at every turn. I didn't mention those two names by accident. Trump has made several offers, some of them completely open to just sit down and discuss things. Chuck and Nancy are terrified of what the MSM will do to them if they reach a deal with the evil Orange Man, no matter whether it is good for the people or not. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910	Posted by DalaiLama on Dec 4, 2018, 8:04:27 AM Quote this Post
" DalaiLama wrote: Trump has made several overtures to them, and they have refused to even come sit at the table and discuss it. They were too worried about not being seen as resisting him at every turn. I didn't mention those two names by accident. Trump has made several offers, some of them completely open to just sit down and discuss things. Chuck and Nancy are terrified of what the MSM will do to them if they reach a deal with the evil Orange Man, no matter whether it is good for the people or not. Good for who? What is good for Republicans isn't necessarily good for Democrats. Offering scraps of food doesn't work. There is no motivation at all, it must be delicious. Trump, Chuck and Nancy isn't doing this for altruism.	Posted by deathflower on Dec 4, 2018, 8:34:00 AM Quote this Post
" DalaiLama wrote: More clean coal :-) What the fuck is "clean coal"???	Posted by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018, 9:04:12 AM
" deathflower wrote: " DalaiLama wrote: Chuck and Nancy are terrified of what the MSM will do to them if they reach a deal with the evil Orange Man, no matter whether it is good for the people or not. Good for who? What is good for Republicans isn't necessarily good for Democrats. Offering scraps of food doesn't work. There is no motivation at all, it must be delicious. Trump, Chuck and Nancy isn't doing this for altruism. A few (not all) of Trump's offers have been wide open - Chuck and Nancy could choose the menu. As for 'Good for who' I meant, even if Chuck and Nancy believed the overall effect of a compromise was something they believed was good for their constituents/country. I wouldn't expect them to agree to something they felt was bad. They might sit down, squabble and not reach any agreements at all. History, however shows that when leaders repeatedly try to reach some agreements, they eventually get better at finding some compromises. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910	Posted by DalaiLama on Dec 4, 2018, 9:50:24 AM Quote this Post
" " DalaiLama wrote: More clean coal :-) What the fuck is "clean coal"??? anthracite coal "Low sulfer, anthracite coal is the cleanest burning coal their is on the planet. Coal is responsible for 33% of U.S energy production. It also known as the major source of pollution in the United States. Anthracite coal is only .2% of all US Coal production. “Subbituminous: Generally used for electricity generation, subbituminous coal contains 35% to 45% carbon. A major component of U.S. coal production, subbituminous coal makes up 47% of U.S. coal production by weight and 41% by energy intensity. Although subbituminous coal has the second lowest energy content, large quantities are found in thick beds near the surface, resulting in low mining cost and, correspondingly, lower prices. Wyoming produces the vast majority of subbituminous coal in the U.S. Bituminous: Containing the widest range of carbon content (45% to 86%), bituminous is mainly used as a fuel to generate electricity, though some is used as coking coal to produce steel. The oldest and most abundant coal type found in the United States, bituminous coal makes up 45% of U.S. coal production by weight and 54% by energy intensity. West Virginia leads production, followed by Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Lignite: Lignite has the lowest energy content of the four types. It is used in electricity generation and comprises 7% of U.S. coal production by weight and 5% by energy intensity. Lignite coal is typically comprised of coal deposits which have had the least amount of heat, pressure, and time to develop. As a result, lignite has a low carbon content (25% to 35%). Texas and North Dakota are the main producers of lignite. Anthracite: Anthracite has the highest carbon content (86% to 97%). Rare in the U.S., it comprises only 0.2% of total coal production. All the anthracite mines in the U.S. are located in northeast Pennsylvania. Seven Billion Tons of Anthracite Coal. In 2013 the United States used less than 1 million tons of coal. So, the Anthracite at Grand Stairway Escalante was enough to last this country almost 7,000 years" http://www.citizensgroup.us/utahs-clean-coal-rip-off-and-clintons-gift-to-communist-china/ "James Riady was the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. Young James was found guilty of and paid a multi-million dollar fine [8.6 Million dollars] for funneling more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122078&page=1 Is coal a dirtier source of energy? Certainly. If it is supplying nearly a third of the US energy needs and that can be cleaned up dramatically without cutting the power supply, then it would make sense to use the better coal. People aren't going to stop needing the energy just because someone else says so. Try going without electricity (including solar/batteries) for a year and see how it goes. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama on Dec 4, 2018, 10:06:08 AM	Posted by DalaiLama on Dec 4, 2018, 10:00:31 AM Quote this Post
" DalaiLama wrote: " rojimboo wrote: Which of the below things are good for the environment, under Trump? Since you gave me a list to pick from, I'll choose this one for starters: TRUMP UNVEILS PLAN TO DRAMATICALLY DOWNSIZE TWO NATIONAL MONUMENTS More clean coal :-) I don't know what this means, the link is dead. But there is no such thing as 'clean' coal... " This isn't a honey-do list. You choose to respond to parts of my post and I choose to respond to parts of yours. I don't assume you agree with the parts you don't respond to, nor do I assume you can't defend them. If you are assuming something different and arguing from that standpoint, you are creating a strawman. (see other post for link, so you can understand the term correctly). First of all, that isn't a strawman, even if I were assuming that any points you omit in your replies, are automatically conceded. I don't expect anyone to do a sentence by sentence rebuttal, but the main points should at least be addressed, and cherrypicking sentences or assertions out of context and arguing them, leads to logical fallacies, and is not really honest. " " rojimboo wrote: You would have to disprove all of them, and even so, it was demonstrated your rebuttal was bunk and full of wrong assumptions and interpretations. Did you take a statistics class? If you have, you should remember from it that what I said is rudimentary statistics. Grab your book if you still have it and re-read it as a refresher. The Cook study was like GGG sampling the off topic posters and then saying "Most of PoE players like to debate Trump, so we will be including more pro-Trump and Anti-Trump content in our next league" It was a non representative sample for starters, and what they qualified as "results" were laughable. If you haven't taken a statistics class, then I could understand why it might not be clear what they were doing wrong. That is part of the reason people in certain professions are required to study it before they can work in the field. Um, 1st, yes, I am familiar with statistics. What you attempted to do however, was manipulate the numbers and the conclusions, to completely ridiculously change the outcome. Alarm bells should be ringing if you think a mistake was made that was so heinous, that the peer reviewed authors result of 97.1% consensus, was in truth 0.3% (!) I mean, come on man. This has in fact very little to do with statistics, and much more with assumptions made in the methodologies part. The 0.3% claim comes from this Legates, Soon, Briggs and Monckton critique that was indeed published in a peer reviewed journal. A bit unrelated to atmospheric science, "Science and Education", but that's fine for this. I believe you got it from a denialist website. http://www.wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf Spoiler " Nevertheless, Cook et al. (2013), after a subjective review of only the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change which ‘‘matched the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’’’ (p. 1), conclude that 97.1 % of those that expressed an opinion endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction (i.e., the standard definition). However, 66.4 % percent of the abstracts had expressed no position. Thus, 32.6 % of the entire sample, or 97.1 % of the 33.6 % who had expressed an opinion, were said to be in agreement with the standard definition. However, inspection of the authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized only 64 abstracts, just 0.5 % of the sample, as endorsing the standard definition. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3 % of the sample of 11,944 papers, actually endorsed that definition. It is not possible to discern either from the paper or from the supplementary information what percentage of all abstracts the authors considered to have endorsed the standard definition. However, a file of raw data was supplied some weeks after publication. From this file, the abstracts allocated by Cook et al. (2013) to each level of endorsement were counted. No attempt was made to verify whether the allocation of each abstract to one of the specified levels of endorsement was appropriate. The results are given in Table 1. Of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 (32.6 %) were marked as explicitly or implicitly endorsing at least the unquantified definition that humans cause some warming. It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 % endorsed ‘consensus’. However, the authors’ data file shows that they had marked only 64 abstracts (0.5 % of the entire sample) as endorsing the standard definition of consensus. Inspection shows that 23 of these 64 do not, in fact, endorse that definition. Only 41 papers (0.3 % of the sample) do so. This critique and complete manipulation of statistics comes from 1. Assuming ALL papers that do not state any position on AGW, must be rejecting the consensus. This is dishonest, as we simply don't know. Thus in Cook et al. 2013, two thirds of the 12000 papers don't even make it to the second round. They do not count in any category. This is entirely reasonable. 2. Assuming only papers that state explicitly a position on AGW positively, can be counted towards the consensus. This is stupid. By the same logic, there is no consensus on tectonic plates in geosciences, because there were 0 papers in the past years that stated a position on the existence of tectonic plates, i.e. 0% consensus on tectonic plates, using Monckton (great guy by the way, read up on him) methodology. This is stupid. I may have mentioned that already. The final nail in the coffin, is the meta-analysis done most recently by Cook, Oreskes and Doran, 2016. The 'consensus on consensus' paper. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf This is from the conclusions bit, please try and read at least this if you have time, as it's incredibly important. Spoiler " We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks. Tol (2016) obtains lower consensus estimates through a flawed methodology, for example by conflating nonexpert and expert views, and/or making unsupported assumptions about sources that do not specifically state a position about the consensus view. An accurate understanding of scientific consensus, and the ability to recognize attempts to undermine it, are important for public climate literacy. Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support (Ding et al 2011, McCright et al 2013, van der Linden et al 2015). However, many in the public, particularly in the US, still believe scientists disagree to a large extent about AGW (Leiserowitz et al 2015), and many political leaders, again particularly in the US, insist that this is so. Leiserowitz et al (2015) found that only 12% of the US public accurately estimate the consensus at 91%–100%. Further, Plutzer et al 2016 found that only 30% of middle-school and 45% of high-school science teachers were aware that the scientific consensus is above 80%, with 31% of teachers who teach climate change presenting contradictory messages that emphasize both the consensus and the minority position. Misinformation about climate change has been observed to reduce climate literacy levels (McCright et al 2016, Ranney and Clark 2016), and manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change is one of the most effective means of reducing acceptance of climate change and support for mitigation policies (Oreskes 2010, van der Linden et al 2016). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the most common argument used in contrarian op-eds about climate change from 2007 to 2010 was that there is no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming(Elsasser and Dunlap 2012, Oreskes and Conway 2011). The generation of climate misinformation persists, with arguments against climate science increasing relative to policy arguments in publications by conservative organisations(Boussalis and Coan 2016). Consequently, it is important that scientists communicate the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW to the public (Maibach et al 2014, Cook and Jacobs 2014). Explaining the 97% consensus has been observed to increase acceptance of climate change (Lewandowsky et al 2013, Cook and Lewandowsky 2016) with the greatest change among conservatives(Kotcheret al 2014). From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong. " " rojimboo wrote: No it wouldn't. The smallest pollen myosotis forget-me-not pollen has a particle diameter of about 6 micrometers. 2.5 um < 6.0 um. Most pollen wouldn't even be included in PM10.2.5 μm Most Myosotis at 4-5μm wouldn't be included in the PM2.5 standard. The ones at their smallest size of 2.5 μm would. Keep working with the search engine and you will find 2.5 and occasionally a 2.4 μm as the lower size limit. So the particle size distribution has the lowest bin starting at 2.5 um. You realise that's STILL not included in PM2.5? Even if a small proportion of the pollen of a particular flower, which is not even prevalent in urban areas in great quantities, would be included in PM2.5, skewing the results, how much would the number concentration change relative to total PM2.5 due to forget-me-nots pollen? Your position is hopeless, abandon ship, please don't be contrarian just to be contrarian. " " rojimboo wrote: and the suggestion that we can limit natural sources of fine particulate matter is ludicrous. You would not only have to prevent atmospheric chemistry from occurring, you would have to destroy all plant life, mostly trees, to prevent emissions. Tad extreme. Likewise, getting to zero emissions from a power plant is extreme. Oh dear. So halving pollutant emissions is pointless, because anything greater than 0 amount of the pollutant is harmful? Are you really arguing this? Do you not see how flawed this reasoning is?? There are nuances that you seem not to realise, or are just trying to score points on some imaginary internet debate score card... " " rojimboo wrote: Woodcock, an accredited engineer, NASA, bla bla bla, demonstrated clearly he had no rudimentary knowledge of physics in his own assertion regarding CO2 not having increased in recent years. His PhD is in physics, his specialty is thermodynamics. I daresay he knows more about the physics of this than either of us do. Opinions do not equal knowledge. Knowledge does not equal insight or understanding. Insight and understanding do not equal opinions. They are all factors in someone forming an opinion, but they do not guarantee an particular opinion outcome. So let me get this straight. We should question or dismiss his 'opinion' on the very incorrect, (purposefully misleading and) ignorant statement regarding CO2 levels not increasing in recent years? But we should NOT dismiss or question his 'non-opinion and expert physicist' knowledge assertion disputing ACC in an interview opinion piece to a local newspaper (with 0 scientific value)? Next to sheep? Are you being entirely honest with yourself?	Posted by rojimboo on Dec 4, 2018, 11:04:38 AM Quote this Post
" " DalaiLama wrote: More clean coal :-) What the fuck is "clean coal"??? It's a reverse Trumpism. i.e 'coal is dirty' and that there is clean coal instead.	Posted by rojimboo on Dec 4, 2018, 1:34:46 PM Quote this Post
I see the left still can't meme lmao GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Posted by Xavderion on Dec 4, 2018, 1:55:11 PM Quote this Post
" Xavderion wrote: I see the left still can't meme lmao nope ;) you guys have all the material	Posted by rojimboo on Dec 4, 2018, 2:22:41 PM Quote this Post
It is good to see that you understand that it's not an actual clean energy, DalaiLama (the term "clean" is used to induce a false understanding of what it actually is). I agree that it is much better to use a carbon-efficient coal when possible. What my worry is, is that moving from a crappy coal to a less crappy coal still isn't a viable solution for long-term. At best, it should be a short-term crutch while setting up better solutions. But the message politicians talking about "clean coal" usually isn't that it's a short term fix, it's that it is the future of energy, which seems to show a willingness to throw our future under the bus for short-term gains.	Posted by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018, 2:31:09 PM