Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

Like this kind of statistical modeling?
Click to expand...

So I will guess that answers my question and clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no idea what mathematical modeling is and certainly have no experience in using it. Thanks for clearing that up :thumbsup:

So what you shared above is not a predictor model On top of this, the point the author of that wordpress blog attempts to make is entirely different and has no relevance to the argument you are attempting to make. Might want to reconsider the links you share before sharing them. Like perhaps you can try and read them first and think to yourself does this support what I am saying or is this a completely different ignorant argument?

Either way i will humor you and will address the authors nonsensical objection since it isn't too hard to explain. The objection the author is making in his "article" (extremely loosely put here as it is more lunatic rambling) is that NASA changed some of the data points in their data plots. This is true and isn't debatable, as it happens from time to time in research, really isn't that big of a deal. However what is more debatable and demonstrates how both you and the author of that rambling as not quite understanding what is being discussed, is the quick jump to dubious nature and assuming such. Esepecially when you look at what effects the correction made, which was barely any when looking at overall trends. But you know, conspiracy gonna conspiracy amirite? To put it in perspective here, using the actual data supplied, it turns out that 1934 was hotter than 1998 n the USA, specifically the difference between the two years is a whpping 0.02 C, however when you look at the trends GLOBALLY 1998 remained the hottest year on record. Which kinda drives a big old hole through the notion that they manipulated the data intentionally to make it appear hotter, when after the correction it remained still hotter by far. In addttion to this, the lunatic author of the blog also writes about this change with this tone that this was a big cover up and done secretly which isn't entirely accurate. When NASA was notified about their mistake they made the correction and there was a subsequent huge back and forth between the individual who pointed out the mistake (Mcintye {sp?}) and NASA research team. This was settled close to a decade ago.. but ya know, "none of the experts have the answers".. back in 05, but in 2016 that whole "gotcha" has been thoroughly fleshed out. Welcome to 2016 BTW, I will tell you that A LOT has changed since 2005 (which is apparently where you are from ;) )
 
On the off chance that you are actually interested in learning, here are the reasons for the data changes along with citations for their reasons

Invalid Link Removed

TL;DR version, The adjustment methodology used is based on peer-reviewed work (and is cited throughout), so no this is not some example of a grand ol conspiracy or a "gotcha" link to drop as an attempt to validate your preconceived perceptions about reality
 
Again I ask the simple question, why haven't ANY of the alarmist predictions come true over the last 4 decades, when they claimed catastrophic events would occur in less than 1 or 2 decades?
 
youngandfree said:
Again I ask the simple question, why haven't ANY of the alarmist predictions come true over the last 4 decades, when they claimed catastrophic events would occur in less than 1 or 2 decades?
Click to expand...

This would require a quite lengthy explanation of mathematical modelling and how it is used as a predictor tool for research which is beyond the scope of the amount of time I am willing to allot to a forum exchange with someone who doesn't really care to learn. I will however point one thing out.. you do realize that some of those predictions that have not come true is because they were too conservative and the actual data we have collected surpassed the predicted amounts, right? Which BTW is totally normal when using this kind of predictor model, but more importantly plenty of predictions have reached fruition in manners that were predicted so in addition to your initial objection being short sighted and lacking nuance/context but is also factually incorrect.
 
Everyone is worried about climate change and I'm here like this is fishy....... "President Obama*plans to build a new gun control force of 430 agents, more than eight times the size of the team of commandos he is sending to the Middle East to hunt down and destroy ISIS terrorists.

According to a*White House*fact sheet, the president plans to deploy 200 more Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,*Firearms*and Explosives agents “to help enforce our gun laws.”

He also plans to add at least 230 new FBI agents to pour over thebackgrounds*of gun buyers. Said the*White House: “The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process thesebackground*checks.”

In Iraq, by comparison, the*White House*is moving to install an estimated 50-200 special operations forces to take down ISIS.

An Associated Press report said the commandos would number around 50, with the rest in supporting roles."

Invalid Link Removed

I'm pretty sure the government will kill us before climate change does, if you're worried about climate change then let's free the market from government regulation.
 
JudoJosh said:
This would require a quite lengthy explanation of mathematical modelling and how it is used as a predictor tool for research which is beyond the scope of the amount of time I am willing to allot to a forum exchange with someone who doesn't really care to learn. I will however point one thing out.. you do realize that some of those predictions that have not come true is because they were too conservative and the actual data we have collected surpassed the predicted amounts, right? Which BTW is totally normal when using this kind of predictor model, but more importantly plenty of predictions have reached fruition in manners that were predicted so in addition to your initial objection being short sighted and lacking nuance/context but is also factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Which predictions that resulted in catastrophic events, as the alarmists warn us about, have come true? Last I checked, Cali is still above water. Predicting a half degree increase or decrease in gloval temp hasn't shown much actual impact.
 
CJNator said:
Everyone is worried about climate change and I'm here like this is fishy....... "President Obama*plans to build a new gun control force of 430 agents, more than eight times the size of the team of commandos he is sending to the Middle East to hunt down and destroy ISIS terrorists.

According to a*White House*fact sheet, the president plans to deploy 200 more Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,*Firearms*and Explosives agents “to help enforce our gun laws.”

He also plans to add at least 230 new FBI agents to pour over thebackgrounds*of gun buyers. Said the*White House: “The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process thesebackground*checks.”

In Iraq, by comparison, the*White House*is moving to install an estimated 50-200 special operations forces to take down ISIS.

An Associated Press report said the commandos would number around 50, with the rest in supporting roles."

Invalid Link Removed

I'm pretty sure the government will kill us before climate change does, if you're worried about climate change then let's free the market from government regulation.
Click to expand...

and with that it appears we have turned off the road of questioning and possibly being skeptical about science and on to the full derp fast lane heading towards fear mongering-ville about how we are heading to some odd fantasy about a dystopian future with everything is ruined all off some minor law/regulation/etc

Have fun there! Bring back a souvenir!
ax1 its been real. Keep on fighting the imagery fight! Im off to try and find a thread on this board involving science and not just product placement. Until next time my friend
 
JudoJosh said:
and with that it appears we have turned off the road of questioning and possibly being skeptical about science and on to the full derp fast lane heading towards fear mongering-ville about how we are heading to some odd fantasy about a dystopian future with everything is ruined all off some minor law/regulation/etc

Have fun there! Bring back a souvenir!
ax1 its been real. Keep on fighting the imagery fight! Im off to try and find a thread on this board involving science and not just product placement. Until next time my friend
Click to expand...

Wait...all that no talk about Trump in a Trump thread???? lol have a good one :)
 
JudoJosh said:
and with that it appears we have turned off the road of questioning and possibly being skeptical about science and on to the full derp fast lane heading towards fear mongering-ville about how we are heading to some odd fantasy about a dystopian future with everything is ruined all off some minor law/regulation/etc

Have fun there! Bring back a souvenir!
ax1 its been real. Keep on fighting the imagery fight! Im off to try and find a thread on this board involving science and not just product placement. Until next time my friend
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
JudoJosh said:
and with that it appears we have turned off the road of questioning and possibly being skeptical about science and on to the full derp fast lane heading towards fear mongering-ville about how we are heading to some odd fantasy about a dystopian future with everything is ruined all off some minor law/regulation/etc
Click to expand...

Handing over policy to a group of overseas un-elected officials is outright illegal and entitles for impeachment. Thats global governance, I prefer nation sovereignty. The issue isnt over just minor laws.

The fear mongering comes from this whole climate change = disaster so sales pitch.
 
Im out!!! Damn notifications, just trying to bring me back in!!!!

I'm tagging in my science brethren, De__eB and Aleksandar37 to answer any other science questions that may arise

Un-subscribed! Adios! (opps, didnt mean to use spanish in a thread about Donald Trump. Guess I just exposed myself as a drug dealing, murdering rapist. Sorry for my criminal lots)
 
IMO climate is irrelevant as of now, as long as government regulation keeps us from progressing in energy we can go back and fourth all we want but nothing will change.
 
JudoJosh said:
Im out!!! Damn notifications, just trying to bring me back in!!!!

I'm tagging in my science brethren, De__eB and Aleksandar37 to answer any other science questions that may arise

Un-subscribed! Adios! (opps, didnt mean to use spanish in a thread about Donald Trump. Guess I just exposed myself as a drug dealing, murdering rapist. Sorry for my criminal lots)
Click to expand...

The science isnt so much the issue, we all know its inconclusive nobody is going to prove that here, but the issue is primarily the policy and the transference of domestic policy to an overseas bureaucracy which calls for impeachment of our elected officials such as Obama as well as members of congress and senate for corruption and treason.
 
CJNator said:
IMO climate is irrelevant as of now, as long as government regulation keeps us from progressing in energy we can go back and fourth all we want but nothing will change.
Click to expand...

I am from the government, and I am here to help you, LOL!!!!!
 
CJNator said:
IMO climate is irrelevant as of now, as long as government regulation keeps us from progressing in energy we can go back and fourth all we want but nothing will change.
Click to expand...

And I will further my opinion on the whole topic as well. I'm not saying that if everyone drove a Prius and had solar panels we would save ourselves from ourselves. I am also not denying the agenda of the "green" movement and the buying of political power it has sought. I get it. There are a dozen other dangers to humanity's survival that pose a greater threat in the short-term. I also use the term "global warming" loosely in my sentiment for pollution and destroying the environment as a whole. It is all part of the same problem. And we cannot sustain life by continuing to treat each other and the planet this way.
 
Misfit28 said:
Let's see how well our economy and livelihood are when the more profound effects are felt.
Click to expand...

I think it would help a great deal if our cities flooded and has to move entire cities such as NYC and San Fransisco inland.

It would create millions of jobs, not just from building new infrastructure but a monstrous boost to production and supply as long as we make here and not in China.

Of course, they would build levies first, those are big projects in themselves.

Trick is not to just let Haliburton get all the contracts.
 
Dma378 said:
And I will further my opinion on the whole topic as well. I'm not saying that if everyone drove a Prius and had solar panels we would save ourselves from ourselves. I am also not denying the agenda of the "green" movement and the buying of political power it has sought. I get it. There are a dozen other dangers to humanity's survival that pose a greater threat in the short-term. I also use the term "global warming" loosely in my sentiment for pollution and destroying the environment as a whole. It is all part of the same problem. And we cannot sustain life by continuing to treat each other and the planet this way.
Click to expand...

Go to Beijing when they have their pollution clouds.....back in 2005 I didnt see the sun once (before it was even an issue because of government denial) and my face was so sunburn I needed medicine for it. You can see it just looking across the street.

Now, China has billions invested in alternative energy and other projects so they care and need to sell it to the people.

Show me the money, Ill show you I care.
 
ax1 said:
Go to Beijing when they have their pollution clouds.....back in 2005 I didnt see the sun once (before it was even an issue because of government denial) and my face was so sunburn I needed medicine for it.

Now, China has billions invested in alternative energy and other projects so they care and need to sell it to the people.

Show me the money, Ill show you I care.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no way man is causing any changes. I mean these clouds would totally be hanging out if we weren't here.
 
Dma378 said:
Yeah, no way man is causing any changes. I mean these clouds would totally be hanging out if we weren't here.
Click to expand...

Lol....yeah we can man made change environmental pollution but that doesnt equate to significant enough to have any impact on global temperatures or the climate changing, thats like saying if I pin a needle in my foot by whole upper body will bleed.
 
JudoJosh said:
Im out!!! Damn notifications, just trying to bring me back in!!!!

I'm tagging in my science brethren, De__eB and Aleksandar37 to answer any other science questions that may arise

Un-subscribed! Adios! (opps, didnt mean to use spanish in a thread about Donald Trump. Guess I just exposed myself as a drug dealing, murdering rapist. Sorry for my criminal lots)
Click to expand...

Oh god, what have you done, drawing me into any political discussion is dangerous
 
ax1 said:
Lol....yeah we can man made change environmental pollution but that doesnt equate to significant enough to have any impact on global temperatures or the climate changing, thats like saying if I pin a needle in my foot by whole upper body will bleed.
Click to expand...

Lol, ok. You say that so definitively.
 
Misfit28 said:
Lol, ok. You say that so definitively.
Click to expand...

I do know definitely we have the science to manipulate weather, but to what extent I'm unsure but for certain it will progress to where man can have complete control of the weather and climate in a general way (not saying we will stop the planet from exploding lol)
 
CJNator said:
Everyone is worried about climate change and I'm here like this is fishy....... "President Obama*plans to build a new gun control force of 430 agents, more than eight times the size of the team of commandos he is sending to the Middle East to hunt down and destroy ISIS terrorists.

According to a*White House*fact sheet, the president plans to deploy 200 more Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,*Firearms*and Explosives agents “to help enforce our gun laws.”

He also plans to add at least 230 new FBI agents to pour over thebackgrounds*of gun buyers. Said the*White House: “The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process thesebackground*checks.”

In Iraq, by comparison, the*White House*is moving to install an estimated 50-200 special operations forces to take down ISIS.

An Associated Press report said the commandos would number around 50, with the rest in supporting roles."

Invalid Link Removed

I'm pretty sure the government will kill us before climate change does, if you're worried about climate change then let's free the market from government regulation.
Click to expand...

Why is any of this gun regulation enforcement action objectionable to you?

I think requiring a background check before any and ALL gun transactions is a perfectly reasonable legal requirement.

It protects people from felons purchasing firearms through personal transaction instead of an arms dealer.

It protects individual sellers of weapons from litigation and liability over their failure to perform a background check on the person they sold a weapon to.

I own an arsenal of guns, I enjoy firing guns, I think every law-abiding citizen has the right to do so as well, and I don't see where anybody bitching about this gun law enforcement move by the president has any ground to stand on whatsoever.

And what does any of that have to do with how many people we have on the ground fighting ISIS?

You really want thousands more American troops on the ground in the middle east? **** no.
 
Hey guys, so it seems we've got a couple cases of stolen valor in the Oregon standoff:

Invalid Link Removed

I have negative respect for people like this. Scum of the earth.
 
Gutterpump said:
Hey guys, so it seems we've got a couple cases of stolen valor in the Oregon standoff:

Invalid Link Removed

I have negative respect for people like this. Scum of the earth.
Click to expand...


my father in law was a Korean veteran...he used to wear his 'korea veteran' hat to all his appointments at the VA, as did Vietnam and ww2 vets. I helped care for him while he was alive-he was a double leg amputee due to frostbite he got while in korea. since I am a veteran my brother in law said he wanted me to have his hat so I could war it to VA appointments in honor of his father...I told him it would be dishonorable for me to wear that hat since I wasn't a korea veteran and hadn't earned that right.....

in honor of those who have served-those posers ARE SCUM!!!!
 
Gutterpump said:
Hey guys, so it seems we've got a couple cases of stolen valor in the Oregon standoff:

Invalid Link Removed

I have negative respect for people like this. Scum of the earth.
Click to expand...

I can see you lose respect for 2 of the men and totally agree if true, that doesnt mean the whole group had knowledge.
 
ax1 said:
I can see you lose respect for 2 of the men and totally agree if true, that doesnt mean the whole group had knowledge.
Click to expand...

one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, baby!!!!

here we go with that categorizing group's thing again, lol!!!!
 
ax1 said:
I can see you lose respect for 2 of the men and totally agree if true, that doesnt mean the whole group had knowledge.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm talking about people who steal valor and pose as veterans. Two cases here in Oregon. I don't understand why people do this.
 
thebigt said:
one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, baby!!!!

here we go with that categorizing group's thing again, lol!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah if you study history (well, I know you know this already, lol,) especially Vietnam era they could easily be government infiltrates to discredit the group. Those two are turds no matter what.
 
ax1 said:
Yeah if you study history (well, I know you know this already, lol,) especially Vietnam era they could easily be government infiltrates to discredit the group. Those two are turds no matter what.
Click to expand...

after all the crap that has happened in my lifetime, I am open to almost anything being possible....but yes, they are turds!!!
 
De__eB said:
I own an arsenal of guns, I enjoy firing guns, I think every law-abiding citizen has the right to do so as well, and I don't see where anybody bitching about this gun law enforcement move by the president has any ground to stand on whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Welcome DeeB.

Just wondering, are you comfortable with having GPS tracking installed on all your guns? This is one of the proposals Obama is pushing for, so wondering how different gun owners feel about that, especially considering how we know NSA and law enforcement (with the Stingray) has a recent history of back-dooring technology to collect data on people. Then of course, if there is a back-door then we know what the possibilities are when it comes to bad people.
 
ax1 said:
Welcome DeeB.

Just wondering, are you comfortable with having GPS tracking installed on all your guns? This is one of the proposals Obama is pushing for, so wondering how different gun owners feel about that, especially considering how we know NSA and law enforcement (with the Stingray) has a recent history of back-dooring technology to collect data on people. Then of course, if there is a back-door then we know what the possibilities are when it comes to bad people.
Click to expand...

Please show me the executive document stating that Obama would like to *mandate* GPS tracking to be a function of all guns?

Alternatively, I'll just explain that the technology you're talking about is actually NFC, and meant to allow you to pair a weapon to a bracelet on your firing hand so that you and only you are able to fire your weapon.

For CCW and home defense, or were I to ever have children, this is technology I would be very interested in.

Any other fallacious things you think the president wants to do that he doesn't actually want to do?
 
De__eB said:
Please show me the executive document stating that Obama would like to *mandate* GPS tracking to be a function of all guns?

Alternatively, I'll just explain that the technology you're talking about is actually NFC, and meant to allow you to pair a weapon to a bracelet on your firing hand so that you and only you are able to fire your weapon.

For CCW and home defense, or were I to ever have children, this is technology I would be very interested in.

Any other fallacious things you think the president wants to do that he doesn't actually want to do?
Click to expand...

I never said "mandate," I said "propose." This is what he has openly talked about the other day on television. He was talking straight GPS as well as what you bring up. He was comparing it to how he loses his ipad.

If he doesnt actually want to do it, why would he say that is what he wants to do? What is your point here?

Are you in a bad mood? lol
 
ax1 said:
I never said "mandate," I said "propose." This is what he has openly talked about the other day on television. He wasnt talking about the CCW tech, he was talking straight GPS. He was comparing it to how he loses his ipad.

If he doesnt actually want to do it, why would he say that is what he wants to do? What is your point here?

Are you in a bad mood? lol
Click to expand...

So you're mad that he proposed that technology be adopted that could significantly reduce accidental gun deaths and gun crimes with stolen guns?

You're a parent who wants to have a home defense weapon in your house.

You currently either need to have your gun and ammo locked up, inaccessible enough, or split apart enough that it is impossible for your child to end up accidentally injuring themselves.

This technology would allow you to have your loaded chambered firearm at the ready were a home defense crisis situation to occur?

How can you possibly act like that's not a great thing?

Why do you even care what the president proposes people optionally do?

The gun industry is more than welcome to say 'no thanks'

The only reason you would have any reason to worry about it whatsoever would be if he were to later mandate that technology, which is obviously the scare tactics implication that every 2nd amendment purist seems to be up in arms (hoho, pun intended) about right now.
 
De__eB said:
So you're mad that he proposed that technology be adopted that could significantly reduce accidental gun deaths and gun crimes with stolen guns?

Why do you even care what the president proposes people optionally do?

The gun industry is more than welcome to say 'no thanks'

The only reason you would have any reason to worry about it whatsoever would be if he were to later mandate that technology, which is obviously the scare tactics implication that every 2nd amendment purist seems to be up in arms (hoho, pun intended) about right now.
Click to expand...

Im not mad, Im just not into government regulating everything, its just not my cup of tea. Different politics for different folks, its not about being mad, lol

I dont support gun control for the most part, so no I dont want any more proposals other than de-regulation. Im a believer that an armed society is a polite society and a safer society. I know you disagree with that but thats fine with me.
 
ax1 said:
I, not mad, Im just not into government regulating everything, its just not my cup of tea. Different politics for different folks, its not about being mad, lol
Click to expand...

So you're worried about the government regulating everything, even though you yourself said that he's not saying he wants to mandate it?

So is he proposing the technology be made available or is he mandating it? Do you even know what it is Obama has done that you're so offended by?

I dont support gun control for the most part, so no I dont want any more proposals other than de-regulation. Im a believer that an armed society is a polite society and a safer society. I know you disagree that but thats fine with me.
Click to expand...

More classic rhetoric from gun rights advocates, oh, you support reasonable regulations on guns, you must not believe in gun rights!

I believe in an armed society.

I would encourage more people to buy and be proficient in the use of a personal protection firearm.

Don't try and pigeonhole my belief in reasonable gun control and encouraging the use of advanced technology to make guns safer into saying that I'm not a strong supporter of the second amendment.
 
De__eB said:
So you're worried about the government regulating everything, even though you yourself said that he's not saying he wants to mandate it?

So is he proposing the technology be made available or is he mandating it? Do you even know what it is Obama has done that you're so offended by?
Click to expand...

I saw him on CNN talking about including them with all guns, I didnt DVR it Id have to find it before I can comment further.

I for the most part do not support Obama's policies....its not that Im "offended" I just disagree with his politics and policies.

Isnt that ok?

De__eB said:
More classic rhetoric from gun rights advocates, oh, you support reasonable regulations on guns, you must not believe in gun rights!

I believe in an armed society.

I would encourage more people to buy and be proficient in the use of a personal protection firearm.

Don't try and pigeonhole my belief in reasonable gun control and encouraging the use of advanced technology to make guns safer into saying that I'm not a strong supporter of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

You shouldnt assume what I think just because a group of people may say something. I think only for myself.

You believe what you feel is "reasonable" gun control, its true to you and you are expressing that.

People are just going to have different opinions on what "reasonable" is, its a political issue. Not everybody will agree with you or me.
 
De__eB said:
So you're worried about the government regulating everything, even though you yourself said that he's not saying he wants to mandate it?

So is he proposing the technology be made available or is he mandating it? Do you even know what it is Obama has done that you're so offended by?



More classic rhetoric from gun rights advocates, oh, you support reasonable regulations on guns, you must not believe in gun rights!

I believe in an armed society.

I would encourage more people to buy and be proficient in the use of a personal protection firearm.

Don't try and pigeonhole my belief in reasonable gun control and encouraging the use of advanced technology to make guns safer into saying that I'm not a strong supporter of the second amendment.
Click to expand...
do you believe Obama is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top