BellGab/bellchan Archive

JC has completely lost it.  This is him.  OMG.  The saga ends now.

OMG IT'S HIM!

This show is already kicking ass.  Was so happy to see who the guest was, this morning.

Hmm I can't seem to upload a pic of my Book of Abramelin.  Though I'm now kind of concerned about having had it for a year.  NOT A GOOD YEAR!

The egregore must be based on the abramelin ritual. 

egragory?

Anyone know the proper spelling?

The Philippines sound lovely.

Thoughts and prayers, victims.  And thank God for the families that aren't trying to blame guns. 

Here are some great hits from the software engineers developing the system that is used today in all our "settled science" models.  These leaks came out of the Climategate scandal.  People just aren't aware of just how manipulated the engine AND the data is for everything that is cited by our politicians and climate activists.  This is dangerous stuff.  The implications of man made climate change are broad and powerful.  Why do you think governments and the UN are funding this "research" so heavily?  It grants them extraordinary power and taxation/industry control.  People need to be aware of this side of things, and end the whole "you're just a denier" thing.  Look into this.  Don't be a blind dogmatic puppet.

"stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"

"stop in 1940 to avoid the decline"

"but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!"

"and already I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation."

"this renders the station counts totally meaningless."

"Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"As we can see, even I'm cocking it up!"

"yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases"

"recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED"

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

"artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline"

"we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400"

"It's botch after botch after botch."

"Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite."

"As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless."

"So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can have been produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04."

"You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO [World Meteorological Organization] codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..."

"OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases."

Quote from: michio on September 25, 2015, 03:36:30 AM
Why do people believe astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists they trust as telling the truth, but when it comes to climate scientists they're seen as evil and underhanded?

If you're actually interested in this answer, sift through this very informative page:

http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

Mountains of reasons.

Not to mention the dogma of this being claimed as settled science:

Quote from: whoozit on September 23, 2015, 12:16:12 PM
Just finished last nights show. I enjoyed it immensely but am saddened to see that a lot of people ignore the political side of this issue.  It has affected me enough to whizz on the electric fence by writing this calling the two main camps to task; "settled sciencers" and "deniers". Participation in the groups seem to be highly correlated with ones political views.  The most alarming part is the wacky part of both segments is quite large and not confined to the fringe.

I know that I don't have time to check all of the scientific papers to see if there are any biases in studies.  I think that we have to all assume the scientists know what they are doing and if the preponderance of papers suggest climate change then we must believe these facts.  I do get alarmed when I hear of computer models of the climate.  These models are only as good as the inputs and biases built in the model.   It is concerning because our models of local weather  leave a lot to be desired. I think the climate would be even more complex.  I have heard several models predict catastrophes in the future that weren't borne out.

I think that "settled sciencers" project an air of superiority and launch ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with their viewpoint.  Check back through the this thread if you don't believe me.  Perhaps for most it out of frustration trying to convince the closed-minded, but there is a large element of the superiority complex.

Most of the "deniers" seem to have their heads in the sand.  As I said a preponderance of papers seem to indicate climate change, disputing a few papers on the fringe does not change the findings.  These people do deserve the ad hominem attacks.  I hate any dearly held position that is the result of ignorance or laziness.  These positions must be re-evaluated as new evidence or thoughts are presented.

Now for the third, and I hope largest, camp.  Those of us who realize climate change is real but are not yet convinced that humans are the main cause.  Now before you accuse me of being a bible thumping Christian ( I'm not) or living in the equivalent of the central or southern U.S. (I don't) let me explain.  I have a BS in engineering and an MBA.  I think it safe to say I understand statistics.  Let's look at simple scenario that will illustrate that correlation does not imply causation.  I think we can agree that everyone that has died was      once conceived.  There is perfect correlation (1) between these facts.  Yet it is difficult to argue that the cause of death of everyone was conception.  With the complexities of climate change I think it is difficult to single out humans as the sole or even major cause.  With that said human carbon output is the only thing we can effectively control so all efforts to reduce this should be looked at.

Sorry for the wall of text.  Feel free to attack me if I've pissed you off.  That won't stop me from buying you the beverage of your choice if we ever meet to have a conversation about this.  A world where everyone thought like me
would suck.

Very well said.  And points to the problem, and one of the reasons behind the "rabiddness" of those that believe the "settled science" isn't in fact settled.  We are called "deniers", and grouped with those that think the climate is stagnant.  The vast majority of "deniers" simply don't see the rational behind saying "man made climate change is real and is settled by the scientific community".  Especially when their own mass studies show a majority of climatologists not even taking a stance. 

We hear this from even our president.  It is as if people who do not get on the wagon are "conspiracy theorist" level mocked.  Which also goes to show the tactic being used against legitimate research on actual conspiracies/cover ups or behind the curtain motivations of activities.  They do actually exist.  But the legitimate stuff is just thrown into the pile of "THEY'RE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS", and it is shunned.  Those that see no reason to correlate man made climate change to our changing climate are lumped into a group that has kooks.  This is a major part of why many are "rabid". 

The rabidness also comes from what happens if man IS creating or furthering climate change.  Governments cease on that.  The people don't like government seizures of power.  We never have.  And especially seizures based on a farce.  This makes the issue extremely important and not just "well you don't just want to let pollution happen, right?!".

I would love a show where there is a counter argument from a knowledgeable source.  I guarantee, this guest would resort to ad hom within minutes.  Who says that kind of thing?  "He is overweight and he smokes".  Maybe he's stressed, doc.  I'm doubting he doesn't know obesity and smoking are bad for you.  Debate the idea, not the idea maker.  The data.  Scrutinize the data and the analysis.  If you can't, get off the air. 

It really was sickening.

Quote from: b_dubb on September 23, 2015, 12:48:01 AM
Scientists can deceive themselves. Data can be modified to fit a preconceived belief.

Climate change, ladies and gentlemen!

Quote from: b_dubb on September 23, 2015, 12:41:40 AM
It points to an obvious schism. Makes me wonder what other disconnects someone is hiding.

Well luckily, science is based on data.  You have nothing to worry about.  He could be a psychopath, but if his analysis is sound, then it doesn't matter to the issue.  You and the good doc should take note of that.  What science is.

Quote from: b_dubb on September 23, 2015, 12:20:00 AM
I took that remark to mean that here's this supposed paragon of higher reason engaged in behaviors that are obviously unhealthy and why look to him for wisdom

Perhaps he's overly stressed by having to deal with these climate hoaxers all day that he turns to smoking and food.  Has nothing to do with wisdom; unless you're implying he is unaware smoking and over eating is bad for you.  Which, surely, you're not. 

Fantastic show.  Different, but fantastic!  Art did an amazing job as usual.  I wouldn't been able to have been as objective as he was.  Not by far.  It's difficult for this issue.  So mad props to Art.  Thank you.

The doctor is saying that ideology plays a role in taking a position in this.  Agreed.  And he's got his.  And his funding for the validation answer. 

He's pretty much just exposed his cult like attitude with the fat/smoker thing.  People in his cult have a certain lifestyle and look.  He disregards because of it.  He is a cultist.

THANK YOU CALLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sick of being called a denier when thousands of CLIMATOLOGISTS take my position: agnostic.

Quote from: 21st Century Man on September 22, 2015, 11:48:36 PM
Someone from 7 miles away thinks I'm cute.  Should I click on the ad or what?

I don't know man, I think she gets around.  She told me the same thing.

The full record.  Let's talk about that.

And cherry picking data (1979):

Ocean levels are getting higher.

Agreed.

Leaving an ice age does that, Art   We get it

I love Art's honesty.  I always will.  Thank you for that Art.

Quote from: maren on September 22, 2015, 11:34:22 PM
Most credible, legitimate theories -- again, on both sides of an issue -- are peer reviewed.  That's cult behavior?  Huh?   I'm guessing if the situation were leaning the other way, the guest was not a climate change believer and the caller was reading from a paper that was not peer reviewed, you wouldn't consider the guest's critique of it not being peer reviewed indicative of cult behavior  But I could be wrong. 

I understand the dilemma, but the caller was presenting substance, that could have been debunked by the doctor's evidence.  The peer review of an analysis has no bearing on debunking the substance within; if the idea is already understood -- as the doctor claims.

Quote from: chefist on September 22, 2015, 11:32:25 PM
Addiction ads?...what's that say about us as an audience ?

hahaha was just thinking that

wonder how long until fleshlight advertisement

The good doctor is just saying "no no no no" -- won't debate the substance of the science -- just says it's not peer reviewed. 

This goes to show the cult like behavior.

Guest is way off.  If he was right, then CO2 would have heated the oceans, as he suggests.  Guest does not know what he's talking about.  10%?  Where did he pull that from?

"OH NO, A DENIER WITH 'DENIER SCIENCE'!" 

inb4 pitchforks and torches.

Thank you current caller.

This caller... oyi

I'll fully "take responsibility" as soon as science proves your premise.  Right now it's very well exposed as a scam.

Quote from: VoteQuimby on September 22, 2015, 11:11:01 PM
Why is CO2 bad?

It's not:

Mark Levin has actually invited the guest.  Open invite.  None will do it.

Scientists do benefit from it.  It was exposed in climate gate.  They shut people out who didn't go along with false data.  The caller is right.  Art just laughs to protect the guest.