misslibby

I think I cut undercut their price for producing a movie nobody wants to see every day.

The magic is in the "strategies"? How does it do that? And does it have a memory between test runs?

I don't understand what benefit the hypothesis library gives here? Why can't you just generate values without hypothesis and call the test function with your values "manually"?

As a counterpoint, my kid was playing a game on Roblox that taught them basics of avoiding fraud before allowing them to play. It was a game about trading animals. It is not all bad.

"I also read that report, but I got a different vibe from it than you did."

You read the 1000 pages? Respect! But is it even "science" or just a bunch of predictions?

"The doomsday scenarios will come to pass if we don't make some pretty drastic changes."

They won't, and afaik even the IPCC scenarios are not all doomsday scenarios. But there is no point arguing it with true believers.

"But locally some countries are already experiencing the first set of symptoms and it isn't pretty. (Notably: the South of Europe and North Africa)"

Are they? I have asked the question a lot to point out a real climate change impact, and never received an answer. There were answers, but when I looked into it, the real reason was always something else, like drilling wells and depleting the ground water and so on. Non climate change human actions still do enormously more environmental damage than climate change.

Of course if you can claim "it was climate change", especially as a third world country, you are eligible for receiving a lot of monetary compensation. So most articles and claims attach it as a footnote, "also because of climate change".

How is it not science? Of course that is also science. Can you point out something where he broke your rule of using scientific methods?

All he did so far was provide some data points. The "real" scientists should be able to explain them easily.

Btw, since I was just talking about her elsewhere, would you say Greta Thunberg qualifies as a scientist?

" the evidence for human influenced climate is so vast and so well researched that it would take an absolute miracle to displace it at this point."

Even now there are various scenarios, not a single consensus. And I rather doubt that you personally have verified the climate science, so what makes you so sure?

Btw it is not about humans influencing climate (of course they do), but about the doomsday scenarios.

"Reproducibility and peer review are part and parcel of science and it is always done by other people than the ones involved in the original research."

Peer review is not a a guarantee for good science, it was invented for the government grant system. Sorry if people call on the peer review system, to me it just shows they are delusional about the workings of the science systems in most places.

"But to you 'other people' may include people that have not studied the subject matter and that are not capable of following the arguments"

Everybody can study the subject matter, that is the thing. It is you who claims only certain people of your choosing are capable of doing so.

"And I'll throw my lot in with the 99.9%, not because it makes my life any easier but simply because that makes good sense."

Do you even know what the 99.9% say? You can check how that number was derived - it was people evaluating abstracts and judging whether those papers agree that humans affect climate. It doesn't say everybody agrees on the doomsday scenarios.

I am not the one making grandiose claims about curability of cancer.

Have you ever even looked at the IPCC report?

Sure - but then how do you verify that some alleged scientist has been doing that, if you are not allowed/worthy of checking their work?

I looked into the source of the 99% claims before, and in general, they don't say what you claim they say. They may find that most scientists agree that humans have an impact on climate, but that doesn't mean they agree on the doomsday scenarios.

"And this is just the measurements part: There is also the problem of predatory journals etc etc. - all of these can skew the "consensus" if you don't account for them."

But doesn't this very sentence from you imply that there is no such consensus as you claim? Apparently there are lots of publications that disagree, so where do you get your consensus from?

" the composition of the field is always changing to some degree and (2) you will never get all scientists to tell you their opinion at the same point in time"

That is why I don't care about a "consensus" - science is not a democracy. I care about verifiable facts, and open discussion.

"So I'm pretty convinced that your argument of a pure, "individually verifiable" science is desirable, but has never existed and never will."

I am not saying that science should output 100% true facts only. Everything only has probabilities. I am saying that scientific output should be verifiable by other people. Scientific facts are not determined in a democratic way, they already exist and are only being discovered.

I did not get the impression that "it's complicated" is the usual way to introduce it. The usual way is to claim billions of scientists allegedly agree and it is supposedly settled science.

"Also, the IPCC put out a like 1000 page report, it's not like this information is being hidden."

Yeah that is actually more fishy than convincing. They should be able to present it in a digestible manner. A 1000 page report is just spam, created with billions of funding. It is also not all hard science afaik, it is a lot of bla bla "this and that will become an issue because of climate change", difficult to find the meat.

The "environmental scientists and academics" in question have probably also been accused of bad science by their opponents. And who gets to decide who is the scientist in that debate?

Shellenberger and Lomborg have presumable studied the issue for decades, so at what point does one cross into "being a scientist" territory? Years of study apparently doesn't do it, so what does? Obama's seal of approval?

You are confusing science and specific systems of doing science, like say a countries university system. A specific system of doing science does not automatically produce good science.

Nobody is a scientist, it is all just people.

Don't you think it is weird that people who try to do their own research end up in the "happy to ignore science" camp, as you put it? I don't think they "ignore science", they just realize it is a lot more complicated and messy than the narrative of the scientific consensus wants us to believe.

You are merely constructing an idealized authoritarian elite of scientists whom nobody can question because allegedly their craft is too complicated for mere mortals.

Sorry, but no.

A lot of people have an academic education, for example, and are capable of reading scientific papers. You have to be able to make a solid point that other people can verify. The last couple of years have already shown that institutions are also of little use.

Don't confuse science with scientific institutions.

How big is the enormous body of scientific work?

Are you sure the usual doomsday predictions are much more complicated?

But local changes of environment would have been expected to increase temperature readings? More asphalt, more buildings...

So one out of several billion elderly people. Nice, but not really a proven concept.

My father used to be a doctor in a place that got converted into a pedestrians only area, he reported that a lot of people had issues. Business for other shops also declined.

I live in a big city, so I see a lot of elderly people. But especially the ones who are not mobile anymore you probably see less. If they were using those tricycle things, I would certainly see them at least some times.

I don't see any elderly people using them. Nice thought, but I am not convinced.

Yeah, there must have been a reason the colleague came up with that obscure historical person, certainly not random.

I'm a European and I have very little trust in European governments. Not much trust in the US government, either.

What do you mean, those old people's motor rollers? I am not convinced.

There are a lot of elderly people, though.

I know it causes issues. Not saying it can't be solved, but it is naive to say that simply banning cars is always a net plus. Why did people living in the city even buy cars to begin with?

Problem for elderly and sick people who need cars to get around.

By buying existing stock you help create a functioning market, which in turn helps other people make investments. That they can sell their stock in the future factors into investment decisions. Therefore imp it is incorrect to say buying existing stocks doesn't create value.

Do you disagree that the monetary policies of the FED messed up the economy? How is that OK?

The point of Bitcoin is literally decentralization. Centralization is control and anti-freedom.

I really don't get why people are happy about Bitcoin crashing. It is the only hope for freedom.

What do you mean by "exchanging money in good faith"? So being able to prove transactions are valid is a bad thing in your opinion?

You think it is a good thing that the FED can make the whole economy tumble by playing with their interest rates?