Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

So that will be a no then, this habit of yours is becoming quite severe.

 

You see, back to talking about me. As usual, you ****in weirdo. You get obsessed over these things.

You pick a minor irrelevant point and focus on it and repeat yourself over and over.

His reputation is proof, the fact he can sell his predictions for money is proof.

You offer nothing to this climate debate whatsoever, just out to serve some twisted need in you. Creepy

At least the others, disagree with me and mock as they may, make points now and then

 

So we can disregard these fackts as well then?

 

You talk about facts yet you post bogus charts, and misquote me, and paraphrase me to imply I said something I did not.
Over and over you do this.

You asked me for proof he made bets Knowing full well the only possible way that can be proved is to get the betting slips which is a ludicrous request and shows what you are about.

 

TT why not go get some scientific points that disagree with what I post and we can then debate the topic? Too much work? Are you anti research?

 

A minor irrelevant point!!!!

You have been biging him up no end yet you have no proof that his predictions are no better than others.

After all your talk of others and their scientific fraud as well. Tut tut tut.

 

No, you'd need to be a scientist to INTERPRET the data and then convert it into a rational argument.

You merely cut and paste data that you take as gospel without having fully explored the full spectrum of opinion on the subject. You've decided that this tact is correct as it suites your agenda, and you're merely posting stuff that backs up your point. But it's completely one eyed, and unbalanced as you've not even considered the converse view and scientific data that goes with it.

You've nailed your colours to the anti climate change mast and there's nothing even remotely scientific about your approach, as you're not a scientist.

Way to avoid my actual point btw. This bloke is running a noddy lifestyle business with no scale. The fact that his website demonstrates his supposed accuracy by relating to a prediction made in 2008 speaks volumes.

 

I can prove you are full of ****.

When did I say this was a fact? Again you are lying

Get the quote or shut up making up lies, back up your ****, show me the proof I said this was "a fact"

 

So, take temp data from NOAA and NASA. I need to be scientist do I to figure if there is a warming trend? I can prove this is an incorrect statement, completely incorrect.

I can put the temps into excel and produce a trend graph with the temperatures.
So I can see from data produced from science that there is a warming or cooling trend without knowing the science that produced the temps.

Sorry mate you're wrong there and I made it as simple as I can for you.

understanding the data means you can use the data.

 

Waiting on that proof TT? Where is it?

 

Another way tobes to disprove your assertion is solar panels, they are created with the data from astrophysicists and solar physicists, the people who design and build the solar panels are electrical engineers, not solar physicists, they use the data from the physicists and create solar panels based on that data.

So they create circuits with materials, parts with less electrons to create a difference potential so when electrons hit the solar panel they fill the empty holes where there are no electrons which creates current.

They only need to know their own subject to do this, not solar physics or astrophysics, they just needed the data that relates to what they are doing.

technology is modular for a good reason, so everyone doesn't need to know every science, they all share data without knowing the science that produced it.

It's not hard to understand

 

@terrifictraore find that proof yet where I said his predictions rates are "fackt"?

See how this stupid game you play can be used? Where is the "proof"?

 

@BringBackFootie.

If Corbyn's theory is right then his predictions would be accurate - yes?

If his predictions were accurate then the data he produces would be invaluable to numerous different businesses - yes?

This being the case demand for his product would be high - yes?

His business would therefore be extremely successful on the Global stage - yes?

Is it? - NO.

Here endeth the business lesson.

 

He is not right all of the time. approx 80% correct but importantly it is the length of his predictions that are important to agriculture.

He runs a business and has customers, who or how many I have no idea.

Remember also that I brought up Corbyn because of the way he does his work which relates to man made global warming. It's how he is predicting that is important, he uses solar activity in his science. This is backed by Svensmark and Christinasen and 400 years of temp and sun data. I was using Corbyn as part of that area of science,

Like I said, you cannot run a business selling predictions if you are no better than the Met office can you? Why would anyone buy predictions if he is no better than the 5 day predictions people get for free.

You don't make documentaries about an idiot that is no better than the met office.

When the 2010 snows hit the UK, the BBC asked Corbyn on because he predicted them, then he got shelved for the Government's expert who neer predicted ****. All science contrary to the man made global warming scam is whitewashed from the media.
The Guardian and BBC outright imply or say that people who disagree are "deniers" ffs, in this day and age calling the other side of a science deniers, is a throwback to the church insisting the earth is flat.


So my points do not rest on Corbyn, he is one source to go aling side other science results I have ben posting. None of which are being questioned, just Corbyn for some reason.

 

Also @Tobes do you accept your assertion about using data without knowing the science that produced the data is incorrect?

 

What I actually said, is that without fully understanding the subject matter you can't fully interpret the results and therefore their impact.

They're merely cold stats taken out of context

You can make stats say whatever you want if you try hard enough.

 

I disproved that already mate.

I have no idea about the mathematical base2 science behind computing. I know the capabilities of the computer because the data is available. So with said specifications I can code software to match performance. I cannot produce a processor, but I can use the data provided by the dessigners to plan accordingly with software I create to run on the processor

This makes your assertions completely untrue, I work in IT, I have worked with technology for nearly 2 decades.
I also do not know the science used in creating network hardware, I just need the data to assess capabilities like speed and throughput, latency and so on and code software accordingly so as to not congest the computer and network.

You dont understand what you are talking about here, just accept it mate, "simple logic" you so often mention cannot be applied here.

You are weighing in yet again on something you have no clue about. Go research standardisation of technology, which is having set specifications (data provided by the designers) so other people can develop tech to work with other tech without knowing literally anything about the underlying science.

Most science involved in commercial IT is secret, it cannot be shared, it's intellectual property. You only need to know how to be interoperable.

 

The entire climate model is a vastly complicated area that's made up of a huge number of variables, around which there is plenty of conflicting opinion and juxtaposed 'science'.

The analogy with your PC processor is bollocks, as the PC will perform in the same manner given the same input, it's uniform, understanding it's make up is irrelevant to your task as a programmer.

p.s. Stop trying to close down the discussion with your much over used, patronising and completely inaccurate attempted put downs. You have no higher level of understanding here, you've just read more about one side of a very complex subject matter.

 

Here is an internet idiot, who works in strip clubs telling someone who's worked in IT for nearly two decades what he says about processors is bollocks.

That is how arrogant and ignorant you are.

When coding a java app I need to know certain details, performance cache and supporting tecnology specs of said processor all of which is provided by the manufacturer.
Here is manufacturer data matrix. These are some of the specs I need to know. I do not need to know the science just the data. This is data, you are an idiot of epic proportions, I can plan coding projects on performance based on this data.

please log in to view this image

I will need to know operating system specs memory specs and motherboard specs all without knowing the underlying science.

You are possibly the most arrogant ignorant idiot I have ever come across.

Even when it is patently clear you are wrong you just keep making an idiot of yourself

 

Oh look he's posted a performance matrix which shows exactly how the processor performs to somehow belittle my point that their perform is uniform, unlike the ****ing climate

What a spectacular buffoon you truly are