Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
Heh. I weighed in on that twat-nugget...shoutinghorse wrote: ↑Not the only lump of shite Dan Snow has put forward this week.
https://i.imgur.com/JOjJxOw.png
https://i.imgur.com/37bqGIv.png
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Nice to see how her selective memory came flooding back :twatson:
If memory serves, Thunderfoot was excoriated for using privileged forum access after being banned. That was one of his "unconscionable" sins against the League of Just Righteousness. Watson simply makes fun of and dismisses a similar incident in her own past. This might have been one of the earliest data points in "It's OK if we do it." Not that any of them are bright enough to realize it.
My limited understanding is that GCR effects on cloud formation are accepted as plausible but that their precise magnitude is uncertain. What is known from GCR measurements, solar activity and possibly other established facts is that the warming we have been seeing over the last fifty years or so is definitely not due to GCR. My understanding is that Shaviv has claimed that GCR has been the predominant driver up 'til now. He seems to have found a strong correlation between temp and cyclical 140 million year cosmic ray variation. Unfortunately the cosmic ray cycle doesn't exist anymore in the updated understanding of astrophysics. He associates with the usual obstructionist thunk tanks which, although not damning in itself, certainly raises red flags.dogen wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 9:03 pmI've worked with Shaviv in the past. He's sloppy -- he shoots for results that challenge the "standard narrative", ignoring possibly important effects that might argue against his claims. I don't think he's a stooge for climate denialists, more someone who prioritizes his own glory over the truth.
What is the practical difference between a shit MEP and a good one? I would trust Robinson to represent my politics on what I see as the most important political issues facing Europe than most other candidates. The rough edges should be irrelevant. IMO the only use for an MEP is to expose the Supreme Soviet's democratic facade and create as much of a stink as possible.Tigzy wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 6:09 amSo - my predictions for the EU election (UK only): BXP won't do as well as the polls have indicated, while the Lib Dems will do pretty good. BXP will still make a strong showing, however. Tories will be annihilated. CUK will have a miserable showing, as will UKIP - now clearly a spent force. Labour will likely be vying for second place behind BXP with the Lib Dems - a hard call, but there's a good chance Labour will actually lose out to the Lib Dems here.
I actually think that even if Corbyn were to promise a second referendum, Labour have left it too late. I think remainer impetus is now behind the Lib Dems, because they've been consistent on their stance from day one, while Labour have flimflammed too much and lost trust. A classic case of 'because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out.'
Forlorn hope: that Tommy Robsinson gets elected as an MEP. I think he'd make a shit MEP of course, but it will be as funny as fuck observing remainers trying to keep us in a union where Tommy Robinson has legislative (albeit highly limited) power.
Very little, true. That said, I have every faith in Tommy Robinson's ability to do some amazingly stupid shit.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ What is the practical difference between a shit MEP and a good one?
The lulz must flow!
It wouldn't surprise me if you have a bunker.
That might not work out so well.
What do you call in actual figures "not as well as polls indicated" for Brexit Party?Tigzy wrote: ↑ So - my predictions for the EU election (UK only): BXP won't do as well as the polls have indicated, while the Lib Dems will do pretty good. BXP will still make a strong showing, however. Tories will be annihilated. CUK will have a miserable showing, as will UKIP - now clearly a spent force. Labour will likely be vying for second place behind BXP with the Lib Dems - a hard call, but there's a good chance Labour will actually lose out to the Lib Dems here.
I actually think that even if Corbyn were to promise a second referendum, Labour have left it too late. I think remainer impetus is now behind the Lib Dems, because they've been consistent on their stance from day one, while Labour have flimflammed too much and lost trust. A classic case of 'because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out.'
Forlorn hope: that Tommy Robsinson gets elected as an MEP. I think he'd make a shit MEP of course, but it will be as funny as fuck observing remainers trying to keep us in a union where Tommy Robinson has legislative (albeit highly limited) power.
A rock is a rock.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ UKIP is the Pet Rock™ of political parties.
The same friend banned who she doesn’t speak to anymore after he agreed on Facebook her coffee hysteria was overblown.Hunt wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 5:38 amshoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Nice to see how her selective memory came flooding back :twatson:
https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/statu ... 5043660801
https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/statu ... 1947848704
If memory serves, Thunderfoot was excoriated for using privileged forum access after being banned. That was one of his "unconscionable" sins against the League of Just Righteousness. Watson simply makes fun of and dismisses a similar incident in her own past. This might have been one of the earliest data points in "It's OK if we do it." Not that any of them are bright enough to realize it.
Lost his deposit with just 2.2% of the vote. Nothing to shout about.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑That must have been in just one area, he got a total of 38,000 votes in the North West regiom. Apparently it is the largest vote share for an independent candidate ever. (Source. The Kipper Stream YouTube)
I honestly think the death knell is tolling for UKIP now. Farage's Mr Brexit persona has resonated with the public and his recent smearing of Batten/Robinson/Benjamin et al appears to have done the trick. I was watching the kipper stream last night (young UKIP members) and they were apopleptic over the future of the party. With Batten set to step down next month (he has said he won't seek re-election if he lost his seat) the favourite to take over is Mike Hookem, don't forget he's the guy who punched Farage's original 'successor' Steven Woolfe's lights out at the EU parliament building in Brussels, and he has recently criticised Batten's backing of Carl Benjamin over the 'Rape Joke' nonsense. From what I could gather last night is that the young kippers can't abide Hookem with many saying they'd quit if he took over.Tigzy wrote: ↑ So there ya go. For me, BXP did better than I expected (cos I thought they'd do a fair bit worse than the polling indicated) and Labour did indeed end up behind the Lib Dems. No real surprises, other than that the Greens did very well - I honestly hadn't thought about them, but then again, who does?
Remainers are presently claiming it's a resounding win for remain, on account of stacking the Labour result on top of the combined LIb Dem, Green etc votes. While in the same breath claiming that Labour need to ditch Jeremy Corbyn, cos its not a proper remain party otherwise. Heh.
Pretty clear what the tories need to do now - get a leader who's prepared to keep no-deal on the table and not entertain any more silly notions of a 'people's vote' or a customs union. Otherwise, they can expect to see massive chunks taken out of their support should BXP stand at the next GE. It certainly won't be enough to get many (if any) BXP MPs into the HoC, but it will see the tories losing enough of the vote share to usher in a Corbyn government. Assuming he's still there, of course.
Anyway - Farage will be happy, Vince Cable will he happy (if anyone can tell, that is), whatever weirdos are fronting the Greens at the moment will be happy, tories will be miserable, though they expected to be anyway, Corbyn will be greatly peeved and Chukka Umunna will be thinking bitchy thoughts about the electorate. Gerard Batten will be - well, who the fuck cares.
No Tommy Robinson as an MEP, alas. Ah well. We've got Widdy though, which should provide a few laughs.
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Farage's Mr Brexit persona has resonated with the public and his recent smearing of Batten/Robinson/Benjamin et al appears to have done the trick.
Yeah, I think UKIP's extremely rapid decline might be down to less of the former and more about such shenanigans as the latter. Don't forget the episode of Bolton and the racist thot, and Paul Nuttall - who was just weird. The ludicrous in UKIP was pretty excessive even before Sargon and TR got on board. Given that both those blokes came with an absolute shit ton of baggage, I doubt it would have made much difference to UKIP's fortunes even if Farage had kept shtum on the matter.the favourite to take over is Mike Hookem, don't forget he's the guy who punched Farage's original 'successor' Steven Woolfe's lights out at the EU parliament building in Brussels
The standard rebuttal to Shaviv's claim is that solar activity has declined since the mid-80's while temperatures have gone up, which I find it to be an incredibly weak argument. We're not talking about a simple system where discrete inputs always have readily identifiable corresponding outputs, but a highly complex non-linear chaotic system, full of latencies, feedback loops and memory. No only that, there are multiple potential other forcings over the shorter term, such as ENSO, the multidecadanal Atlantic and Pacific oscillations and volcanic eruptions. It seems completely foolhardy to look for a correlation to one particular input in the short-term, and when it doesn't exist, declare that input negligible. I could just as easily, and just as wrongly, argue the slight reduction in global temperatures from 1940-1975 while atmospheric [CO2] was ramping up was proof that CO2 isn't a significant cause of warming. Shaviv himself argues that the atmospheric temperature increase from solar forcings over the course of a solar cycle is a small fraction of the total warming influence of the forcing up to equilibrium, which he quantifies as 10%. The remainder of the heat is primarily stored in the upper oceans. Even 50 years later, according to Shaviv, 50% of the warming influence still hasn't been expressed as atmospheric temperature increase.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
What is known from GCR measurements, solar activity and possibly other established facts is that the warming we have been seeing over the last fifty years or so is definitely not due to GCR.
I don't think he ever claimed this, depending on your definition of 'predominant'. When he first entered the scene in the late aughts, he said GCR was responsible for 2/3's of 20th century warming. More recently, he's been saying half, so perhaps he's being more conservative/careful.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ My understanding is that Shaviv has claimed that GCR has been the predominant driver up 'til now.
You're the one using, get back to yer Kippers channel.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Rory Stewart????? are you using? :shock:
I'm not a kipper. :lol:InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑You're the one using, get back to yer Kippers channel.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Rory Stewart????? are you using? :shock:
Never said you were, yet with all the alternate reliable sources on election night , you just happen to get your news off a YT channel with its massive 238 subscribers "An unofficial channel for young Kippers with strong opinions. Under 30 years of age and want to get involved in UKIP?"shoutinghorse wrote: ↑I'm not a kipper. :lol:InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑You're the one using, get back to yer Kippers channel.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Rory Stewart????? are you using? :shock:
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑
That must have been in just one area, he got a total of 38,000 votes in the North West regiom. Apparently it is the largest vote share for an independent candidate ever. (Source. The Kipper Stream YouTube)
Yet they were one of the 1st to announce it so they must have been doing something right. For your information I was also keeping an eye on LBC and various twitter feeds like Britain Elects who were also giving updates as they came in.InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑Never said you were, yet with all the alternate reliable sources on election night , you just happen to get your news off a YT channel with its massive 238 subscribers "An unofficial channel for young Kippers with strong opinions. Under 30 years of age and want to get involved in UKIP?"shoutinghorse wrote: ↑I'm not a kipper. :lol:InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑You're the one using, get back to yer Kippers channel.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Rory Stewart????? are you using? :shock:
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑
That must have been in just one area, he got a total of 38,000 votes in the North West regiom. Apparently it is the largest vote share for an independent candidate ever. (Source. The Kipper Stream YouTube)
No need to try to cover yourself, you just happen to follow it on the night because YT suggested it , just a coincidence , your secret's safe with us :whistle:shoutinghorse wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 1:50 pmYet they were one of the 1st to announce it so they must have been doing something right. For your information I was also keeping an eye on LBC and various twitter feeds like Britain Elects who were also giving updates as they came in.InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑Never said you were, yet with all the alternate reliable sources on election night , you just happen to get your news off a YT channel with its massive 238 subscribers "An unofficial channel for young Kippers with strong opinions. Under 30 years of age and want to get involved in UKIP?"shoutinghorse wrote: ↑I'm not a kipper. :lol:InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑You're the one using, get back to yer Kippers channel.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Rory Stewart????? are you using? :shock:
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑
That must have been in just one area, he got a total of 38,000 votes in the North West regiom. Apparently it is the largest vote share for an independent candidate ever. (Source. The Kipper Stream YouTube)
Why does your graph stop at 2000? To avoid showing the marked decrease in solar activity since then?jugheadnaut wrote: ↑The standard rebuttal to Shaviv's claim is that solar activity has declined since the mid-80's while temperatures have gone up, which I find it to be an incredibly weak argument. We're not talking about a simple system where discrete inputs always have readily identifiable corresponding outputs, but a highly complex non-linear chaotic system, full of latencies, feedback loops and memory. No only that, there are multiple potential other forcings over the shorter term, such as ENSO, the multidecadanal Atlantic and Pacific oscillations and volcanic eruptions. It seems completely foolhardy to look for a correlation to one particular input in the short-term, and when it doesn't exist, declare that input negligible. I could just as easily, and just as wrongly, argue the slight reduction in global temperatures from 1940-1975 while atmospheric [CO2] was ramping up was proof that CO2 isn't a significant cause of warming. Shaviv himself argues that the atmospheric temperature increase from solar forcings over the course of a solar cycle is a small fraction of the total warming influence of the forcing up to equilibrium, which he quantifies as 10%. The remainder of the heat is primarily stored in the upper oceans. Even 50 years later, according to Shaviv, 50% of the warming influence still hasn't been expressed as atmospheric temperature increase.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
What is known from GCR measurements, solar activity and possibly other established facts is that the warming we have been seeing over the last fifty years or so is definitely not due to GCR.
One thing that seems reasonably certain from ice core beryllium-10 concentrations in concordance with direct sunspot observation is that solar activity over the 20th century was much higher than in previous centuries.
http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/defaul ... roxies.png
One thing going for the cosmic ray theory is that it at least partially explains the run-up in global temperature from 1920-1940, which is comparable in magnitude to the 1980-2000 run-up. Increased greenhouse activity due to CO2 is at a loss to explain this, since atmospheric [CO2] was barely above preindustrial levels during this time. Solar activity appears to have peaked in the '50s and then had a small decline through the rest of the century, although still at much above average historical levels. It's no stretch at all to say the temperature run-up from 1980-2000 had the latent heat from higher solar activity earlier in the century, as well as the still historically high solar activity, as a contributing factor. As a bonus for the cosmic ray theory, the relatively slow warming since 2000 is consistent with the effect of lower solar activity kicking in, while CO2 greenhouse dynamics again offers little explanatory power for this.
The evidence that 20th century warming had the increased solar activity->lower GCR incidence-> less lower atmosphere cloud formation dynamic as a significant factor is very strong, although I should again reiterate the evidence that it was the dominant factor is negligible
I don't think he ever claimed this, depending on your definition of 'predominant'. When he first entered the scene in the late aughts, he said GCR was responsible for 2/3's of 20th century warming. More recently, he's been saying half, so perhaps he's being more conservative/careful.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ My understanding is that Shaviv has claimed that GCR has been the predominant driver up 'til now.
The data wasn't truncated, if that's what you're asking. The graph is from Wikipedia and is based on data from published papers from the '90s, hence nothing beyond 2000. As I mentioned, the reduced rate of warming since 2000 seems quite consistent with reduced solar activity so far this century, so there isn't anything to hide anyway.
I always thought that the rainbow coalition of the 'nones' could bear further analysis. For all I know the unaffiliated may include Wiccans, Pagans, Asatru &nd Satanists as well as the requisite atheists & agnostics and vaguely christian or new age-y types. (Gathering them all together would make for an interesting inter-faith forum - or at least one more diverse than typical).Keating wrote: ↑ Haven't completely got through this, but the first half hour I've seen so far is very interesting:
<no vid>
In particular: "The nones are not children of the enlightenment. Which means they completely disconnect from both sides of the discussion."
Kirb in particular would probably find it interesting to. I mention his name because he's like Beetlejuice.
It's show time!Keating wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 7:36 pmHaven't completely got through this, but the first half hour I've seen so far is very interesting:
In particular: "The nones are not children of the enlightenment. Which means they completely disconnect from both sides of the discussion."
Kirb in particular would probably find it interesting to. I mention his name because he's like Beetlejuice.
You could even say you've had a Dark Enlightenment.
Ouch! Is Carl really responsible for killing the UKIP party? I'm not familiar with UK politics, but this makes it sound like he played a big part in it.
Holy shit... that was great. I used to listen to Sargon once in a while. I would say that about a year or two ago he was kind of interesting.... but.... I have not made it through one of his videos in ages. It is really kind of fun (in a sick sort of way) to watch him destroy himself. I'm glad I am an engineer. A good solid profession where you make things and try to build stuff.
