justsubmit

7 ms·

1.
by justsubmit 7y ago
A prediction that fails to materialize is not a scientific one.
2.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Thou foul hypocrite and deceiver. I won't throw Wikipedia links at you for those terms, because you obviously know how to (ab)use it.
3.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> you don't expect your collection to retain long-gone files unless it's an ever-growing pile of tapes/discs. Rule number whatever of backups: Don't discard old backups. Bitrot occurs, and people make mistakes, and n
4.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> What's your criteria for backup? Something like Attic, Borg, CrashPlan, Restic, etc, that allow snapshot retention periods, like "1 per year for the last X years, 1 per month for the last X months, one per day for the last X
5.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Wait, you think Clinton was going to start a war with Russia? Did you miss how she sold American uranium interests to Russia? Did you miss how Russia worked with her campaign to prepare the Steele dossier, i.e. how Russia worked with the Cl
6.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient. 1. Invent a pseudoscientific field. 2. Make normative, political claims from said field. 3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influentia
7.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> HOWEVER, with this new 7.0 release you can pay a little more and increase that retention time to one year, or forever. This was a highly requested feature for the situation you ran into. I'm glad to hear that Backblaze has finally
8.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> There's definitely issues in science with things like repeatability in individual studies, but that doesn't apply to something like AGW. That's nonsense. Not only have you not supported your assertion, but: 1) there&#x2
9.
by justsubmit 7y ago
That sounds really interesting. How do you manage the library, especially in regard to storage limits, expiring old content, etc?
10.
by justsubmit 7y ago
One may or may not like it, but that is language how literally works. You may not like my swapping the definitions of those words, but that is language how literally works. Therefore, according to your logic, it is valid.
11.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that? Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.
12.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> I want peer-reviewed science, like the vastly significant body of research that has been produced showing AGW. Are you also unaware of the peer-review crisis? > No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy
13.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> What blocks you from even considering the option? Human biology, perhaps? After all, haven't we evolved over thousands of years to be omnivores? > It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of a lack of intellectu
14.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipp
15.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Wow, who could argue with such a great package. BTW, since you care about reducing wealth inequality, can you send a dono to my paypal?
16.
by justsubmit 7y ago
That's right: when you can't answer, just downvote. If you didn't have 66,000 karma, maybe you'd be held accountable by the mods for religious and political flamewars. But since you do, you can act however you please.
17.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Your reaction shows that we have reached the crux of the matter. Don't take my word for it. You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. Their fraud was exposed years ago, yet people continue citing him
18.
by justsubmit 7y ago
You cited skepticalscience.com, which is John Cook's web site. He's a known scientific fraud, behind the paper Cook, et al, which is cited as the source of the "consensus" claim. If you're interested, you can goog
19.
by justsubmit 7y ago
It's downvoted because some random user with >=500 karma didn't like it and clicked the down arrow. That's all downvoting means here. There are no ethics for voting here. In effect, voting is simply a measure of whether
20.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Your use of weasel words like "plenty of" and "tend to" shows that this is just your biased impression, not necessarily representative of actual populations. As well, your characterization of people who disagree with yo
21.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity. You did admi
22.
by justsubmit 7y ago
You're falling into the same trap. Your words also work from the other perspective: Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where th
23.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Here's a quote from the article he cited: > Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he wa
24.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right? No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship
25.
by justsubmit 7y ago
That's not a scientific claim, because it's not falsifiable. It's a pseudoscientific one, based on computer models that have not proven accurate, and which they admit low confidence in. Therefore, to say, "However big t
26.
by justsubmit 7y ago
> I am absolutely am, though I've also done my own climate reconstructions from raw, unadjusted data, which was the beginning of me deciding which 'side' of this debate was correct and honest, and which side were clowns. T
27.
by justsubmit 7y ago
Don't you recognize that your words are just as meaningful if the parties are switched? For example: That's not at all why global warming alarmists exist. The reason they exist is because the green energy industry managed to mak
28.
by justsubmit 7y ago
If I may turn a phrase: If this NYT article hasn't convinced you that climate change propaganda is real, and that the NYT is not a reputable source, probably nothing will.
29.
by justsubmit 7y ago
From the other perspective, it's yours that is cynical (saying that we're all going to die in a few years), and its yours that is crab-bucketing us into the past (stop eating meat, stop flying airplanes, stop driving cars, stop ta
30.
by justsubmit 7y ago
What if you are one of the public that's been deceived for, now, over 20 years? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712

More ›