Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever

[thaicurious]

 

Regarding this above response copy/pasted here:

 

•  1

thaibeachlovers reacted to this

 

 

I'm not sure what thaibeachlovers found laughable about my assessment on pathological liars and conspiracy theories so I can only hope, I guess, that the poster finds hysterical the following supporting studies:

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/prefrontal-white-matter-in-pathological-liars/35A3EB7AA604A278BBEBDE6C1CB20DB2#

Liars showed a 22–26% increase in prefrontal white matter and a 36–42% reduction in prefrontal grey/white ratios...

 

 

These findings provide the first evidence of a structural brain deficit in liars, they implicate the prefrontal cortex as an important (but not sole) component in the neural circuitry underlying lying and provide an initial neurobiological correlate of a deceitful personality.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

people with certain personality traits and cognitive styles are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories...

"These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist. 

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201310/fiddler-the-truth

Those working in the mental health system need to pay attention to pathological lying so that they can inform legal practitioners about whether pathological liars should be held responsible for their behaviour. Whether pathological liars are aware of the lies they tell has major implications for forensic psychiatry practice. Dr. Dike says it could help determine how a court deals with pathological liars who provide false testimony while under oath.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900972/

...We conclude that illusory pattern perception is a central cognitive mechanism accounting for conspiracy theories and supernatural beliefs.

 

...The answer that emerges from our data is that irrational beliefs are associated with a distortion of an otherwise normal and functional cognitive process, namely, pattern perception. .... The present findings offer empirical evidence for the role of illusory pattern perception in irrational beliefs. We conclude that illusory pattern perception is a central cognitive ingredient of beliefs in conspiracy theories ...

 

Regarding "Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever", conspiracy "theorists" & pathological liars can be dangerous because convincing others to believe what isn’t true can leave through politics populations poorly prepared.

[bristolboy]

On 2/13/2020 at 10:50 AM, rabas said:

Your argument reminds of quantum superposition, is it evidence or what they think of the evidence? Answer: Yes.

 

But actually I am not the one defining consensus.

 

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

 

I will leave you with a thought. Everyone using the Ptolemaic astronomy system got the same correct answers. Yet incredibly, it turned out the Earth was not at the center of the Universe.

 

Climate models? Not so good.

Invoking the Ptolemaic system is a remarkably bad choice as an example. Essentially the Ptolemaic system is an algorithm. Anyone using the Ptolemaic system wouldn't be doing scientific research but just trying to figure out where some heavenly body would be on such and such a date. They would essentially be doing what engineers do when they employ formulas based on science to come up with a solution to a particular problem. They're not trying to advance knowledge. Just using what is already there.

[bristolboy]

On 2/13/2020 at 10:50 AM, rabas said:

 

Climate models? Not so good.

 Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. A team headed by Zeke Hausfather looked at 17 older cliimate models including some dating from the 70's.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

"Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

And get this: 5 out of the remaining 7 levels turned out to be correct when adjusted for the actual output of greenhouse gases as opposed to what the authors projected the future output would be:

"But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

 

For instance, James Hansen's model projected too much methane output and didn't foresee a fall in chlorofluorocarbons. When the correct quantities were run through Hansen's formula, it proved to be accurately aligned with observed temperatures. 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, thaicurious said:

I'm not sure what thaibeachlovers found laughable about my assessment on pathological liars and conspiracy theories so I can only hope, I guess, that the poster finds hysterical the following supporting studies:

I laughed because you purport to KNOW what Trump's psychological condition is. You wrote a great long piece that was all off topic, and the post I am replying to is also all off topic.

 

I find it amusing when posters attempt to bring Trump into threads that have absolutely nothing to do with him, and expect us to take it seriously.

 

To be actually on topic, to be of any use, a temperature study should be posted from Antarctica proper, and not from the most northern tip of the banana belt ( Antarcticans refer to the peninsula as the banana belt as it is so much warmer than the "real" Antarctica ).

When Vostok station starts to be flooded by melt water, I'll start to take it seriously. Till then, not at all.

To those buying into the premise that Antarctica is warming significantly, tell me why the sea ice went out in 1901 to 1904 when the Norwegians had to use a boat at Pram Point, and the sea ice did not go out there decades later.

[thaicurious]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I laughed because you purport to KNOW what Trump's psychological condition is. You wrote a great long piece that was all off topic, and the post I am replying to is also all off topic.

 

I find it amusing when posters attempt to bring Trump into threads that have absolutely nothing to do with him, and expect us to take it seriously.

 

To be actually on topic, to be of any use, a temperature study should be posted from Antarctica proper, and not from the most northern tip of the banana belt ( Antarcticans refer to the peninsula as the banana belt as it is so much warmer than the "real" Antarctica ).

When Vostok station starts to be flooded by melt water, I'll start to take it seriously. Till then, not at all.

To those buying into the premise that Antarctica is warming significantly, tell me why the sea ice went out in 1901 to 1904 when the Norwegians had to use a boat at Pram Point, and the sea ice did not go out there decades later.

How deceitfully convenient of you to question, say, where the science is from, claiming that on topic (it is), yet claiming off topic questioning from where the questioning is from (it's not) be that by politics, plain ol' greed, mental deficiencies (be those pathological lying, sociopathy, etc) or otherwise. Because only germane to the topic is what you so deem, not what might undermine your hilarious declaration. Oh nooos, the argument isn't going according to what you think ought be the process.

 

Never mind employing plain ol' common sense, anyone who has dealt before for years intimately with absolutely known pathological liars can spot them in crowd, never mind pick them off a podium. Trump's symptoms aren't just classic, by his position they epitomize the case.

 

By his position, and by his positions from his position, he's perfectly suited to use as example of causes of climate change and the warming of Antarctica (THE TOPIC) be that by his stance on offshore drilling, by nominating an energy lobbyist as interior secretary, by pipeline orders, by placing a coal guy as an EPA guy, by increasing logging public lands, by reducing EPA criminal enforcement, by dismantling coal restrictions, by drilling protected habitat, by greenlighting airgun blasts for oil and gas, by approving Arctic offshore drilling, by disbanding air pollution review panel of scientists, by repealing methane rules, by ending rules on coal burning plants, by weakening fuel economy rules, by cutting NASA environmental monitoring program, by rolling back car emissions standards, by eliminating government use of the phrase climate change (how cowardly was that?), by proposing cuts to climate & clean energy programs, by proposing cuts to clean energy research, by loosening regulations on toxic air pollution etc etc etc.

 

All according to you hardly at all relevant to the topic. Nice try.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, thaicurious said:

How deceitfully convenient of you to question, say, where the science is from, claiming that on topic (it is), yet claiming off topic questioning from where the questioning is from (it's not) be that by politics, plain ol' greed, mental deficiencies (be those pathological lying, sociopathy, etc) or otherwise. Because only germane to the topic is what you so deem, not what might undermine your hilarious declaration. Oh nooos, the argument isn't going according to what you think ought be the process.

 

Never mind employing plain ol' common sense, anyone who has dealt before for years intimately with absolutely known pathological liars can spot them in crowd, never mind pick them off a podium. Trump's symptoms aren't just classic, by his position they epitomize the case.

 

By his position, and by his positions from his position, he's perfectly suited to use as example of causes of climate change and the warming of Antarctica (THE TOPIC) be that by his stance on offshore drilling, by nominating an energy lobbyist as interior secretary, by pipeline orders, by placing a coal guy as an EPA guy, by increasing logging public lands, by reducing EPA criminal enforcement, by dismantling coal restrictions, by drilling protected habitat, by greenlighting airgun blasts for oil and gas, by approving Arctic offshore drilling, by disbanding air pollution review panel of scientists, by repealing methane rules, by ending rules on coal burning plants, by weakening fuel economy rules, by cutting NASA environmental monitoring program, by rolling back car emissions standards, by eliminating government use of the phrase climate change (how cowardly was that?), by proposing cuts to climate & clean energy programs, by proposing cuts to clean energy research, by loosening regulations on toxic air pollution etc etc etc.

 

All according to you hardly at all relevant to the topic. Nice try.

No explanation as to why it was apparently warmer at McMurdo in 1901 to 1904 than 50 years later then?

Bye.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No explanation as to why it was apparently warmer at McMurdo in 1901 to 1904 than 50 years later then?

Bye.

How about normal climate variability. Things didn't really start to rapidly change until the late 70's.

[thaicurious]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No explanation as to why it was apparently warmer at McMurdo in 1901 to 1904 than 50 years later then?

Bye.

Hello Attention Deficit Disorder hiding behind Deceptive Shiny Object

 

THAT was your deflection, NOT your complaint which I answered in full.

 

Here was your complaint:

 

On 2/19/2020 at 7:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I laughed because ...

 

I find it amusing when posters attempt to bring Trump into threads that have absolutely nothing to do with him...

 

To which here I answered directly your complaint:

 

On 2/19/2020 at 1:24 PM, thaicurious said:

...by his position they epitomize the case.

 

By his position, and by his positions from his position, he's perfectly suited to use as example of causes of climate change and the warming of Antarctica (THE TOPIC) be that by his stance on offshore drilling, by nominating an energy lobbyist as interior secretary, by pipeline orders, by placing a coal guy as an EPA guy, by increasing logging public lands, by reducing EPA criminal enforcement, by dismantling coal restrictions, by drilling protected habitat, by greenlighting airgun blasts for oil and gas, by approving Arctic offshore drilling, by disbanding air pollution review panel of scientists, by repealing methane rules, by ending rules on coal burning plants, by weakening fuel economy rules, by cutting NASA environmental monitoring program, by rolling back car emissions standards, by eliminating government use of the phrase climate change (how cowardly was that?), by proposing cuts to climate & clean energy programs, by proposing cuts to clean energy research, by loosening regulations on toxic air pollution etc etc etc.

 

All according to you hardly at all relevant to the topic. Nice try.

 

It is YOU who failed to respond to the answer of your complaint. INSTEAD, all you did was to hold up a shiny object deflection (because you know you were wrong and you were called out and you don't like that so you deflect deflect deflect away from your wrong doing, your wrong thinking, your wrong saying, your wrong speech).

 

I have duly answered your original complaint. Now here is my appropriate response to your deflection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[englishoak]

Get a life.