Stephen Hawking: A Tragic End
Comments
-
I bet the power company stockholders aren't happy about that.
-
Another example of Bills trustworthy, internet-defensible "FACTS!" Link to this, Bill. Then you will have PROOF for your FACTS that you say you believe.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/new-york-times-getting-bolder-with-their-climate-lies/
-
@GaoLu said:
Another example of Bills trustworthy, internet-defensible "FACTS!" Link to this, Bill. Then you will have PROOF for your FACTS that you say you believe.https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/new-york-times-getting-bolder-with-their-climate-lies/
The realclimatescience.com website is prima facie evidence of the existence and consequences of scientific illiteracy in the United States.
The blog's latest post, dated August 1, offers a link to a lengthy, passionate eulogy for past national leaders' unproductive passions about doing something to change the trend of the globe's climate. I've not made my way through the entire 31,000 word piece yet, but the blog's claim that it contains "a spectacular amount of lies" is blatantly, but not unexpectedly, false.
I don't have time or the energy to revisit the entire issue of global climate change, but consider two observations about the realclimatechange.com site's "argument:"
- The blog begins with a throwback to a NY Times front page from January 1989. "US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend" announces the headline in the upper left corner of the page.... Notice the location whose historic data were examined: The US - as the article points out, 1.5% of the earth's land mass. The problem we face as a planet is NOT "US Warming." It's global warming caused by global, NOT US, climate change.
The failure to remember the profound difference between the adjectives "global" and "regional," between "global" and "national," between "global" and "local," and between the nouns "weather" and "climate" appears frequently in climate change deniers' arguments.
Every time it's unseasonably cool here for more than a few days, the local conservative radio talk show host trumpets our weather as evidence that there's no global warming. He's wrong, because he doesn't remember - or doesn't know, or doesn't care - that just because it's cooler than average where you're standing, doesn't mean it's cooler than average globally. And what's happening in your local WEATHER this week is not evidence of what's happening to the global CLIMATE.
Specific to the Times' piece, that there was no warming trend in 1.5% of the globe's surface area does NOT mean there was no warming over globe as a whole. (The Times' article makes that point, of course; perhaps the blogger missed it)
- The other observation I make about the realclimatechange.com website's argument is the relative absence of statistical data. Its star witness is a NY Times story about US data from thirty years ago. Do you suppose ANYTHING has happened to the GLOBAL climate in the last thirty years?
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... (emphasis added)
"The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and the four warmest years on record have all occurred since 2014. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the history, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time."
I guess something HAS happened to the GLOBAL climate in the last thirty years.
For those who value visual aids, here's a graphic from the NOAA site. The zero line in the graph is "the long-term average temperature for the whole planet," and each bar reflects its year's result as either above or below that long-term average. Notice the long term change in the trend of temperature anomalies beginning about 40 years ago - clear evidence of a warming planet (though NOT necessarily a warming US!)
Bottom Line: The fact that the earth is warming is settled scientific fact. Scientifically illiterate blogs such as realclimatescience.com and those who frequent them remind us that what's "settled" in science will likely never "unanimous" in the country.
-
I was pretty sure I would get a FACTUAL reaction from Bill. Scientific FACTUAL at that. He chooses his internet-based FACTS to best slander his blatantly attacked, but not unexpected imaginary enemies. Very predictable. Every reinforcement adds strength and information to the study of such people.
-
@GaoLu said:
I was pretty sure I would get a FACTUAL reaction from Bill. Scientific FACTUAL at that. He chooses his internet-based FACTS to best slander his blatantly attacked, but not unexpected imaginary enemies. Very predictable. Every reinforcement adds strength and information to the study of such people.Let's Play "Name that Irony!": Today's clue is "My post was a response to the INTERNET-BASED link you provided in your previous post." Now, NAME THAT IRONY!!
You're not surprised that I responded with facts, even scientific facts. I'm not surprised either.... Common ground is good.
I'm ALSO not surprised that I responded to your post with an argument supported by facts, data, and logic, while you responded to my post with another personality critique (though this time, you're kind enough to group me with other "such people;" thanks)
That's the course of almost all of our exchanges, Gao Lu. I post topic-focused arguments and supportive data. You post critiques of me as a person, a poster, and even as Christian. I know I'm not your mother, but I feel compelled to repeat my advisory to you that if you spent as much time commenting on the topics of threads as you do commenting about me, I think you'd produce some provocative posts.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
I was pretty sure I would get a FACTUAL reaction from Bill. Scientific FACTUAL at that. He chooses his internet-based FACTS to best slander his blatantly attacked, but not unexpected imaginary enemies. Very predictable. Every reinforcement adds strength and information to the study of such people.Let's Play "Name that Irony!": Today's clue is "My post was a response to the INTERNET-BASED link you provided in your previous post." Now, NAME THAT IRONY!!
Really?
You're not surprised that I responded with facts, even scientific facts. I'm not surprised either.... Common ground is good.
Wrong.
There is probably no common ground.
I would seldom make such a claim of "facts" for much of your offerings--which are mostly intentionally distorted political opinions.
I'm ALSO not surprised that I responded to your post with an argument supported by facts, data, and logic,
Yeah , right. Standard edition Bill-logical fallacy and facts straight from the internet. Dude, you lost us long ago.
while you responded to my post with another personality critique (though this time, you're kind enough to group me with other "such people;" thanks)
Let me be clear, I am referring to you, Bill.
That's the course of almost all of our exchanges, Gao Lu. I post topic-focused arguments and supportive data.
mmm
You post critiques of me as a person, a poster, and even as Christian. I know I'm not your mother, but I feel compelled to repeat my advisory to you that if you spent as much time commenting on the topics of threads as you do commenting about me, I think you'd produce some provocative posts.
You remain not my mother.
I can write well and provocatively as is evidenced at times by your dramatic responses. I am interested in calling your bluff now and then for a variety of reasons. Far better is to have Christian Discourse about God and the Bible and our response to it. I have never known you to do such a thing. All you do is attack God the Bible and Christian values and regurgitate the pointless liberal political nonsense of others. Try real Christian Discourse and I will be your #1 man all over it.
-
@GaoLu said:
I would seldom make such a claim of "facts" for much of your offerings--which are mostly intentionally distorted political opinions.By definition, "facts" are objectively, indisputably true items of information. While in your posts you frequently protest the truth of my assertions of fact, you NEVER actually demonstrate that any of them is not true. Your course of action is akin to a district attorney who in his or her opening statement at trial bellows about the defendant's obvious guilt, but when the judge says "Call your first witness," responds "Your honor, the prosecution rests. And we now will present our closing argument... that the defendant is obviously guilty!"
There are lots of possible explanations for your failure to disprove any of my assertions of fact. But there is only one explanation that is both the simplest and the most likely: You can't disprove any of them... because they are indeed "facts."
Yeah , right. Standard edition Bill-logical fallacy and facts straight from the internet. Dude, you lost us long ago.
By definition, the source of a "fact" is irrelevant. An "objectively, indisputably true" item of information is objectively and indisputably true whether it is found online, in a library, or in the mouth of a convicted felon.
Let me be clear, I am referring to you, Bill.
So much for my compliment for your kindness in grouping me with other "such people."
I can write well and provocatively as is evidenced at times by your dramatic responses.
The issue isn't whether you write well or provocatively. The issue is whether in your responses to me in these forums, you comment more about the issues under discussion or about me. I contend that you comment more - much more - about me than about the issues under discussion.
I am interested in calling your bluff now and then for a variety of reasons.
It's not "now and then" that you "(call) my bluff," Gao Lu. It's in almost every one of your posts, to the point of a seeming obsession.
Far better is to have Christian Discourse about God and the Bible and our response to it.
If you genuinely believe that it would be "far better... to have Christian Discourse about God and the Bible," I encourage you to create more posts about God and the Bible than you create about me, my personality, my character, or my ministry.
All you do is attack God the Bible and Christian values and regurgitate the pointless liberal political nonsense of others. Try real Christian Discourse and I will be your #1 man all over it.
a) Your claim that "all (I) do is attack God, the Bible, and Christian values" is false.
b) Your claim that I "regurgitate the pointless liberal political nonsense of others" is your personal opinion, to which you're obviously entitled.
c) Your apparent claim that the content of my posts compels or coerces you in your posts to comment on me, my personality, character, and ministry far more than you comment on the issues that are the subjects of my posts' content, is a rationalization for your posting conduct.The truth is you have full authority of the direction and content of your posts; the content of my posts has only as much authority as you allow it to have. You don't HAVE to violate, nearly every time you respond to my posts, the CD expectation that you will "criticize ideas, not people." You do and probably always will!! But you don't HAVE to.
-
Bill, the point you clearly get but continue to deny is that your facts are not facts at all. You defend what I call "Bill-facts." They are opinions about data and mostly very absurd opinions at that. The real-fact that you call Bill-facts "facts" is what I am pointing out as informative about you.
I don't want to waste much time arguing Bill-facts that are not real-facts.
a) Your claim that "all (I) do is attack God, the Bible, and Christian values" is false.
It is my observation.
b) Your claim that I "regurgitate the pointless liberal political nonsense of others" is your personal opinion, to which you're obviously entitled.
It is my observation.
c) Your apparent claim that the content of my posts compels or coerces you in your posts to comment on me, my personality, character, and ministry far more than you comment on the issues that are the subjects of my posts' content, is a rationalization for your posting conduct.
My rather laid-back choice. I know it dismantles your plans and arguments and that doesn't feel good. Well, so it is.
The truth is you have full authority of the direction and content of your posts;
Exactly
the content of my posts has only as much authority as you allow it to have.
Right. None.
You don't HAVE to violate, nearly every time you respond to my posts, the CD expectation that you will "criticize ideas, not people." You do and probably always will!! But you don't HAVE to.
You are still not my mother, try as you might.
I hate to upset your breakfast, lunch and dinner and cause you to meet your therapy group, but here is some bait for you. What are you going to do with it, huh?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-collusion-no-collusion-well-203852579.htmlIt is a link. From the internet. It is a fact. Huh, Bill.
-
@GaoLu said:
Bill, the point you clearly get but continue to deny is that your facts are not facts at all. You defend what I call "Bill-facts." They are opinions about data and mostly very absurd opinions at that. The real-fact that you call Bill-facts "facts" is what I am pointing out as informative about you.Now you reference my "opinions" rather then my assertions of fact. Nice change of the subject, Gao Lu! I've NEVER claimed my "opinions" are facts. I've claimed that my assertions of fact reflect actual facts. Revisit our exchange in this thread and the "Two small reminders of our nation's big problem" thread. Over and over again I've challenged you to demonstrate that even one of my "assertions of fact," NOT my "assertions of opinion," is not true. Of course, you haven't done so.
To assist your search, you will find at least many of my references to "assertions of fact" HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
I don't want to waste much time arguing Bill-facts that are not real-facts.
TRANSLATION: You don't want to waste time trying to prove your false claim.
If so many of my assertions of fact have actually been untrue, it should be simple to prove one of them false, and you would surely get SUCH satisfaction from proving me wrong. But my assertions aren't untrue, so instead of trying to prove the un-provable, in your posts you throw rhetorical sand in the air, hoping no one will notice.... Spoiler Alert: We notice.
It is my observation.
It is my observation.You say potato....
c) Your apparent claim that the content of my posts compels or coerces you in your posts to comment on me, my personality, character, and ministry far more than you comment on the issues that are the subjects of my posts' content, is a rationalization for your posting conduct.
My rather laid-back choice. I know it dismantles your plans and arguments and that doesn't feel good. Well, so it is.
Your personal attacks don't "(dismantle)" anything for me. I take them for the juvenile, Trumpkin-like outbursts that they are. Why do you repeatedly choose to attack me rather than the content of my posts? Perhaps one day we'll know the truth.
You don't HAVE to violate, nearly every time you respond to my posts, the CD expectation that you will "criticize ideas, not people." You do and probably always will!! But you don't HAVE to.
You are still not my mother, try as you might.
The issue, of course, is not whether I'm your mother. The issue is why in response to my posts you continually violate a CD expectation by choosing to attack me personally rather than the content of the posts. If, as you reply, the content of my posts has no authority over you, then you, too, believe that you don't HAVE to violate that expectation. You COULD "criticize ideas, not people" if you wanted to. Great!... except that you DON'T. Again and again and again you choose personal attack over issue discussion. It is my "observation," Gao Lu, that when you do so, you make the wrong choice.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Now you reference my "opinions" rather then my assertions of fact.
Sometimes I reference one and sometimes the other, I am probably very clear which is which. Knock off weaseling out of the trap of false facts you set and caught yourself in.
Nice change of the subject, Gao Lu! I've NEVER claimed my "opinions" are facts.
I am clear which is which. Most of your alleged facts are opinions--and usually, not even your own.
I've claimed that my assertions of fact reflect actual facts. Revisit our exchange in this thread and the "Two small reminders of our nation's big problem" thread. Over and over again I've challenged you to demonstrate that even one of my "assertions of fact," NOT my "assertions of opinion," is not true. Of course, you haven't done so.
Over and over I remind you that when you pawn off internet links to other people's opinions, that I don't accept them as facts that you claim they are. People look at data and form opinions about it. Those opinions are not facts because they are based on facts.
I will not waste time arguing ridiculous, angry, liberal opinions that you rename facts.
TRANSLATION: You don't want to waste time trying to prove your false claim.
blah blah blah
It is my observation.
It is my observation.You say potato....
??? Weird.
Your personal attacks don't "(dismantle)" anything for me. I take them for the juvenile, Trumpkin-like outbursts that they are. Why do you repeatedly choose to attack me rather than the content of my posts?
Obviously, you have very strong emotional dismantling, but you are right in that the non-sense remains and is never dismantled.
The problem isn't the content. There is rarely any substance there to attack. The problem is that anti-biblical, anti-godliness spread everywhere and pawned off as **Bill-facts **when largely what you offer is internet links to hate-mongering sites full of opinion pieces [sorry, I can't help laughing].
You don't HAVE to violate, nearly every time you respond to my posts, the CD expectation that you will "criticize ideas, not people." You do and probably always will!! But you don't HAVE to.
Right. I don't have to.
You are still not my mother, try as you might.
The issue, of course, is not whether I'm your mother.
Your trying to be my bossy mother is a major issue. You vacillate between being a bully and pawning yourself off as my mother. Bullies hate being stood up to. And, you just don't make a good enough "mother" to bother discussing. If you deal with issues and not people then this would rarely happen.
The issue is why in response to my posts you continually violate a CD expectation by choosing to attack me personally rather than the content of the posts.
The content is my concern. When I attack your alleged facts you take it personally. Whatever. That is your personal problem.
If, as you reply, the content of my posts has no authority over you, then you, too, believe that you don't HAVE to violate that expectation. You COULD "criticize ideas, not people"
Exactly. I am criticising your "facts" and calling them bunk. If you take that personally, then that is on your dime, buddy.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHA @Bill_Coley definitely brought out "Scientific illiteracy"
Bill, you are the one who is blinded by your "science"
-
@GaoLu said:
Sometimes I reference one and sometimes the other, I am probably very clear which is which. Knock off weaseling out of the trap of false facts you set and caught yourself in.For one last time: BY DEFINITION, there is NO SUCH THING as a "false fact." By definition, "facts" are objectively, indisputably true items of information. If an item of information is "false," then by definition, it is NOT a fact.
For example, the definition of the word "fact" is itself a "fact." It is objectively, indisputably true that a "fact" is defined as an objectively, indisputably true item of information. Hence, by that definition, it is also a "fact" that there is no such thing as a "false fact."
The rest of your response, in various forms and fashions, repeats what's become a well-worn and eternally unsubstantiated chant for you: "Bill, your 'facts' aren't facts!" Again and again and again and again you've claimed my facts aren't true. And again and again and again and again you've failed to offer ANY evidence that EVEN ONE of my facts isn't true. Had you been claiming in all those posts that Martian mobsters killed JFK, you would have provided no less supportive evidence for your claim.
Again and again and again your verify the accuracy of my comparison of your practice of making unsubstantiated claims to a district attorney who bellows "Guilty!" during his or her opening statement ["Bill, your "facts" are false!!"] but when the judge says "Call your first witness," ["Gao Lu, prove that even one of my facts is untrue."] says "We rest our case," ["I don't want to waste much time arguing Bill-facts that are not real-facts."] then launches into a closing argument that repeats the "Guilty!" claims of his or her opening ["Exactly. I am criticising your "facts" and calling them bunk."]
In my view, your refusal to offer proof suggests two things: 1) that you believe a claim repeated is a claim proven: i.e. "Bill, your facts aren't true because... well, I've said so in TEN different posts!!" and 2) that you can't prove my facts aren't true because... my facts ARE true, which means there IS no evidence for you to offer.''
That's the only explanation that makes sense, Gao Lu. If you COULD prove me wrong, you would. But you can't - because your claim is false - so you repeat the false claim in hopes that its repetition will produce community consent to its truth. Even when I explicitly challenge you to prove even one of my "facts" untrue, all you do is repeat your unproven claim.
In this way, you demonstrate your allegiance to Trumpkin Nation, the community whose Dear Leader has built a remarkably successful political career out of repeating false claims so many times that his followers come to believe them (e.g. Obama wasn't born in the US; millions voted illegally in the 2016 election; Obama tapped Trump Tower phones; and among the more recent additions to the collection, that select news media outlets - most likely, those which publish stories he doesn't like - are "Fake News!" and an "enemy of the people") Your recurring choice in our exchange not to offer ANY evidence for your claim positions confirms your Trumpkinhood, your willingness to repeat claims against others, even if the claims are false.
Due to the fundamental conflict between our respective views on the necessity of proving the claims we make, I see no reason to remain in this exchange, Gao Lu. Should you decide to change your view, and offer proof that my "facts" are not true, I will re-engage. Until then, you may (and likely will) continue to repeat your claims about my facts, about my being a "bully" or seeking to be your "bossy mother," or about any other aspect of me or my posts. When you make those claims, we know you won't try to prove them and I won't choose to respond to them.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Sometimes I reference one and sometimes the other, I am probably very clear which is which. Knock off weaseling out of the trap of false facts you set and caught yourself in.For one last time: BY DEFINITION, there is NO SUCH THING as a "false fact." By definition, "facts" are objectively, indisputably true items of information. If an item of information is "false," then by definition, it is NOT a fact.
Right. That is the point I have made repeatedly and your twisting it is futile. What you claim as FACTS (Bill-facts) are usually just warmed-over opinions about actual facts. What you claim to be facts are not facts. That is my point and you keep repeating it like a parrot, so obviously, you get it.
A FALSE FACT, also known as a Bill-Fact, is an opinion foisted off as a fact.
Note:
Bill-Facts: Also knows as "Billium" which is best understood as a mix of Bile and "Boil 'em cabbage down." Hereafter we can can simply refer to this unususal phenomenon as Billium.The rest of your response, in various forms and fashions, repeats what's become a well-worn and eternally unsubstantiated chant for you: "Bill, your 'facts' aren't facts!"
Exactly and your claiming they aren't doesn't make it anymore true than anything else you say.
Again and again and again and again you've claimed my facts aren't true. And again and again and again and again you've failed to offer ANY evidence that EVEN ONE of my facts isn't true. Had you been claiming in all those posts that Martian mobsters killed JFK, you would have provided no less supportive evidence for your claim.
Exactly. I am not going to argue the validity of a Bill-fact / Billium.
In my view, your refusal to offer proof suggests two things: 1) that you believe a claim repeated is a claim proven: i.e. "Bill, your facts aren't true because... well, I've said so in TEN different posts!!" and 2) that you can't prove my facts aren't true because... my facts ARE true, which means there IS no evidence for you to offer.''
I don't recall that you have ever proven a fact. I won't bother to disprove a fact that isn't a fact, or is a Bill-fact or best, Billium.. I know that is very disturbing to a liberal political mind and causes emotional hysterics. I am not in the slightest sorry.
That's the only explanation that makes sense, Gao Lu. If you COULD prove me wrong, you would. But you can't - because your claim is false - so you repeat the false claim in hopes that its repetition will produce community consent to its truth. Even when I explicitly challenge you to prove even one of my "facts" untrue, all you do is repeat your unproven claim.
See above. Billium.
In this way, you demonstrate your allegiance to Trumpkin Nation,
You have suddenly abandoned "Trumpster" because that now has a positive, all-American ring to it and Americans like it. Trumpkin Nation is the nation you hate so violently. Why don't you just leave? Only your therapy group will miss you.
Just so you know, Trumpkin sounds kind of quaint as well. I like it as well as Trumpster. Boy, I bet that will make you just hopping mad! Take some selfies and show us.
Due to the fundamental conflict between our respective views on the necessity of proving the claims we make,
Silly Bill: "I can prove it! I can prove it from the internet!" Oh, Silly, Billy. Billium.
I see no reason to remain in this exchange, Gao Lu. Should you decide to change your view, and offer proof that my "facts" are not true, I will re-engage.
Such a pity. Cling to your Bill-facts / Billium. They are all the life you are going to get in this world.
...about my being a "bully" or seeking to be your "bossy mother," or about any other aspect of me or my posts.
Right. I am not interested in trying to prove whether or not you are my mother, however hard you try to convince me that you are.
Pure Billium.
Yuck.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I love it! BILLIUM
