|
Post by gadreel on Aug 2, 2020 22:09:32 GMT
A few years ago, the Arizona state legislature passed a law that the Bible could be taught in the state’s secular public schools. The law wasn’t for classes about the Bible – objective, historical, literary lessons – but Christian supremacy, inerrancy, and right-wing U.S. revisionist history (e.g. the U.S.. Constitution is based on the Bible). So, the Camp Verde School Board voted 4-0 to use a curriculum from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. The NCBCPS materials treated Christianity as true and the Bible as fact. One researcher claimed it had “shoddy research, factual errors and plagiarism.” Even after the course was revised, it still promoted conservative views. Dianne Post, the legal director for the Secular Communities for Arizona, wrote a piece for the Verde News (behind a paywall) in which she highlighted some of her concerns: It repeats historical errors and uses fake quotations to promote Christian nationalism, the mistaken belief that the American system of law and government is based primarily on the Bible. To cut to the chase: a survey of the student body came up with only two students who might be interested in taking the course. With such low interest, the district can’t justify offering the class, much less finding a teacher for it. Tory Roberg, the lobbyist for Secular Coalition for Arizona said: Its interesting to note that the Bretheren here in NZ (who are probably some of our more extreme religionists) have Bretheren exclusive schools that are only for Bretheren but that they hire outside teachers and the schooling is secular. As a Christian I don't think there is a place for religious teaching (excluding the history of religion from an academic standpoint) in schools.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 2, 2020 22:11:10 GMT
No real argument, just a lame ad hom, cool. I'll take the win on this one. Don't spend it all in one place. I should not be too concerned, he is bound to carry on getting a steady supply off you.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 3, 2020 11:19:45 GMT
As usual, you post obfuscation dished up as observation. Where you found anything in either Paul's or my above posts pertaining to intelligence or lack of same relating to the subject at hand is beyond me. That bolded part is particularly incoherent and relates to nothing whatsoever. Perhaps you could do with a reminder that clarity is also your friend, and if you want to chip in on this discussion a bit more of it would be welcome. Let’s see if I can fix it. With the people who are nice, because they are stupid, you might have to try their long term plans only to find that instead of reducing poverty, it just creates more of it. People who can't fish and that sort of thing. It needed some punctuation. Being nice is stupid and trying to reduce poverty creates more of it. But let’s not try nice peoples’ plans because they don’t work. Well, that’s true, creating low wage jobs, no matter how well meaning, does increase poverty. “Teach a man to fish” is a favorite saying among Christians always said when they refuse to be charitable. However, I think the New Deal worked and kept folks from being totally destroyed financially during the First Depression. In other words, Arlon serving up the same trite, warmed-over, conservative fiscal mean spiritedness that sustains many a Xtian in their smugness, as profound and original thought. It figures.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2020 22:11:58 GMT
As usual, you post obfuscation dished up as observation. Where you found anything in either Paul's or my above posts pertaining to intelligence or lack of same relating to the subject at hand is beyond me. That bolded part is particularly incoherent and relates to nothing whatsoever. Perhaps you could do with a reminder that clarity is also your friend, and if you want to chip in on this discussion a bit more of it would be welcome. Let’s see if I can fix it. With the people who are nice, because they are stupid, you might have to try their long term plans only to find that instead of reducing poverty, it just creates more of it. People who can't fish and that sort of thing. It needed some punctuation. Being nice is stupid and trying to reduce poverty creates more of it. But let’s not try nice peoples’ plans because they don’t work. Well, that’s true, creating low wage jobs, no matter how well meaning, does increase poverty. “Teach a man to fish” is a favorite saying among Christians always said when they refuse to be charitable. However, I think the New Deal worked and kept folks from being totally destroyed financially during the First Depression. Yes, far more commas are used in news writing because it accommodates an audience with a much lower reading level, lest I forget. I asked for your opinion and you gave one. On close inspection it doesn't appear so different from mine. How shocking is that? One little detail you omitted is that some people like to attach moral lessons to their "gifts." Would you fault them for that?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2020 22:19:11 GMT
I introduced the idea you failed to address. I'm sure quite much is beyond you. Just as you do not value my opinions, it is important for you to realize that I do not value yours. What expression is there? Mexican standoff? You won't pay any more attention to me than I do you, but you really do need to grow up. There is no number of IMDb friends or fiends that can make your silliness any more valid. I suppose that means we're both wasting our time here. That's why I limit my time here. It must be quite a shy and demure idea in that case, as I fail to see where it put in an appearance. It assuredly is beyond me to see a point that looks to be nonexistent. Do you really not know how to speak in anything other than strings of ad homs? Do you believe an air of pseudo-intellectual condescension intimidates those with whom you attempt debate? Whether you value my opinions or no is immaterial to me, unless of course your 'value' is being paid out in Green Stamps or some like currency that might prove useful to me . Perfect strangers on a faceless forum are not where I go to seek self-validation, Arlon. I somehow think the same cannot be said of yourself. It appears to me you'd do pretty well to go from limiting your time here to abandoning your time here altogether, the better to devote your attentions to platforms that can more fully support the mighty weight of your intellect--such as Reddit. Who knows--you might even improve your 'karma' by moving over there on a permanent basis . I asked a question. I did not specify who should answer it. It seemed somewhat topical in a reply to paulslaugh. That you prefer not to address it is not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2020 22:20:42 GMT
Don't spend it all in one place. I should not be too concerned, he is bound to carry on getting a steady supply off you. Oh goodness! I wonder which candidate he'll back with all that money?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 3, 2020 22:30:23 GMT
I should not be too concerned, he is bound to carry on getting a steady supply off you. Oh goodness! I wonder which candidate he'll back with all that money? I don't care much for Trump or Biden, but if forced to pick I guess I'll go with the one that isn't a scientific illiterate.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2020 22:35:31 GMT
And it has still never crossed your (Let's not describe it, I've already made that point.) mind that you have presented no evidence whatsoever yet? Yes I have, with a link or two way back, in fact there is no end of evidence easily to be found - although I am sure none of it will work on your 'open mind'. Now stop evading and provide something back of your own to evidence your ideas. Remember when I asked, and you ignored, that if there has been no climate change and your idea applies, why then has the ice not been retreating consistently down the centuries, and not rapidly as it has been over the last few decades? Care to try an answer? "I answer every direct question I am asked" That was still you, right? For everyone else with an open mind here is the relevant Wiki article. And Arlon's authority for his theory is: ......... Thank you for your failure, whether real of feigned, to grasp my logical explanation of how a drier polar region can lose ice without being a necessarily warmer region. It helps people around the world, few that there are here, to see how mentally challenged people such as yourself or whoever you're playing ought to stay clear of science, but do not. Reports of the temperature of the "planet" are ridiculous. There are not enough metering stations for the precision you advertise. The same is true even of the smaller polar portion of it addressed here for two reasons. One, it is also too large, and two, it is not comprehensive. Now about the name calling, it is obviously the purpose of those reports to identify people who should not engage in scientific discussions. How remiss would I be then if I did not point out what a failure you are? The world needs to know there are stupid idiots misreading "science" all over the place and consider what to do about it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2020 22:37:11 GMT
Oh goodness! I wonder which candidate he'll back with all that money? I don't care much for Trump or Biden, but if forced to pick I guess I'll go with the one that isn't a scientific illiterate. How will you know which one? What if they both are scientifically illiterate??
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 3, 2020 22:38:23 GMT
I don't care much for Trump or Biden, but if forced to pick I guess I'll go with the one that isn't a scientific illiterate. How will you know which one? What if they both are scientifically illiterate?? The one that thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax and picked a creationist as his VP
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 4, 2020 13:32:42 GMT
It must be quite a shy and demure idea in that case, as I fail to see where it put in an appearance. It assuredly is beyond me to see a point that looks to be nonexistent. Do you really not know how to speak in anything other than strings of ad homs? Do you believe an air of pseudo-intellectual condescension intimidates those with whom you attempt debate? Whether you value my opinions or no is immaterial to me, unless of course your 'value' is being paid out in Green Stamps or some like currency that might prove useful to me . Perfect strangers on a faceless forum are not where I go to seek self-validation, Arlon. I somehow think the same cannot be said of yourself. It appears to me you'd do pretty well to go from limiting your time here to abandoning your time here altogether, the better to devote your attentions to platforms that can more fully support the mighty weight of your intellect--such as Reddit. Who knows--you might even improve your 'karma' by moving over there on a permanent basis . I asked a question. I did not specify who should answer it. It seemed somewhat topical in a reply to paulslaugh . That you prefer not to address it is not surprising. Poor Arlon. Once more, your debating skillset proves unequal to a challenge. Fortunate you had Paul there to put your word salad into somewhat more legible order--you're quite correct in my preferring not to address it, as I find the deciphering of argle-bargle to be both tedious and generally unrewarding in the long run. Where nothing was there in the first place, nothing is to be discovered by clearing away the rubble.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 4, 2020 14:36:11 GMT
I find the deciphering of argle-bargle to be both tedious and generally unrewarding in the long run. Where nothing was there in the first place, nothing is to be discovered by clearing away the rubble. Concise and excellent description of Arlon's posting career.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 4, 2020 18:59:12 GMT
Yes I have, with a link or two way back, in fact there is no end of evidence easily to be found - although I am sure none of it will work on your 'open mind'. Now stop evading and provide something back of your own to evidence your ideas. Remember when I asked, and you ignored, that if there has been no climate change and your idea applies, why then has the ice not been retreating consistently down the centuries, and not rapidly as it has been over the last few decades? Care to try an answer? "I answer every direct question I am asked" That was still you, right? For everyone else with an open mind here is the relevant Wiki article. And Arlon's authority for his theory is: ......... Thank you for your failure, whether real of feigned, to grasp my logical explanation of how a drier polar region can lose ice without being a necessarily warmer region. Evasion noted. Would you like me to repeat again that question in respect of your idea? Remember how I told you how you would next most likely revert to name calling? Thank you for your opinion. I have supplied detailed descriptions of the various ways the temperature is measured. They are good and accurate enough for the vast majority of climate scientists, even if if it doesn't suit your "open mind". It would be more effective if you ever offered substantiation for your theories and opinions than returning to ad hominems which, as you have been told before, are not arguments. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that climate change is happening and that it is most likely to be man made. Sorry about that. Typically calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot tells one much more about you than it does them. For everyone else: climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/new-studies-increase-confidence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/#:~:text=GISTEMP%20uses%20air%20temperature%20recorded,skin%20temperature%E2%80%9D)%20from%20space.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 4, 2020 22:36:17 GMT
I asked a question. I did not specify who should answer it. It seemed somewhat topical in a reply to paulslaugh . That you prefer not to address it is not surprising. Poor Arlon. Once more, your debating skillset proves unequal to a challenge. Fortunate you had Paul there to put your word salad into somewhat more legible order--you're quite correct in my preferring not to address it, as I find the deciphering of argle-bargle to be both tedious and generally unrewarding in the long run. Where nothing was there in the first place, nothing is to be discovered by clearing away the rubble. PKB
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 4, 2020 23:20:23 GMT
filmflaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
[1] I have supplied detailed descriptions of the various ways the temperature is measured. They are good and accurate enough for the vast majority of climate scientists, even if if it doesn't suit your "open mind". [2] It would be more effective if you ever offered substantiation for your theories and opinions than returning to ad hominems which, as you have been told before, are not arguments. [1] No, you did not. Your own source says ... Since you are not capable of knowing what that actually means, I'll try to tell you again, since it is what I have maintained, no, their methods cannot overcome those obstacles. That would be ridiculous. Furthermore taking the temperature of the surface of the planet through clouds does not make any sense. You believe you provided mathematically sound data when what you actually provided was estimates and guesses of people who rather obviously overrated their estimates and guesses perhaps deliberately to make fun of you. [2] As long as you continue to believe hype from "scientists" (who are going out of business by the way) rather than my logic there is no argument I can make that you will accept. Do you even realize that your methods are no different from mine insofar as ad hominem goes? You have no argument, just a name you trust, and you use it to disparage mine. [3] That admits it does not take the temperature of the entire atmosphere. Read it again.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 5, 2020 13:20:02 GMT
Poor Arlon. Once more, your debating skillset proves unequal to a challenge. Fortunate you had Paul there to put your word salad into somewhat more legible order--you're quite correct in my preferring not to address it, as I find the deciphering of argle-bargle to be both tedious and generally unrewarding in the long run. Where nothing was there in the first place, nothing is to be discovered by clearing away the rubble. PKB Patient Knows you're Boring. Someone fetch the defibrillator. Unless of course, you were referring to this: pKb Definition in Chemistry
pKb is the negative base-10 logarithm of the base dissociation constant (Kb) of a solution. It is used to determine the strength of a base or alkaline solution. pKb = -log10Kb The lower the pKb value, the stronger the base. As with the acid dissociation constant, pKa, the base dissociation constant calculation is an approximation that is only accurate in dilute solutions. Kb can be found using the following formula: Kb = [B+][OH-] / [BOH] which is obtained from the chemical equation: BH+ + OH− ⇌ B + H2OBut you already knew that, didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 5, 2020 16:28:35 GMT
Patient Knows you're Boring. Someone fetch the defibrillator. Unless of course, you were referring to this: pKb Definition in Chemistry
pKb is the negative base-10 logarithm of the base dissociation constant (Kb) of a solution. It is used to determine the strength of a base or alkaline solution. pKb = -log10Kb The lower the pKb value, the stronger the base. As with the acid dissociation constant, pKa, the base dissociation constant calculation is an approximation that is only accurate in dilute solutions. Kb can be found using the following formula: Kb = [B+][OH-] / [BOH] which is obtained from the chemical equation: BH+ + OH− ⇌ B + H2OBut you already knew that, didn't you? I do make a mean vinaigrette.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 5, 2020 17:10:48 GMT
Patient Knows you're Boring. Someone fetch the defibrillator. Unless of course, you were referring to this: pKb Definition in Chemistry
pKb is the negative base-10 logarithm of the base dissociation constant (Kb) of a solution. It is used to determine the strength of a base or alkaline solution. pKb = -log10Kb The lower the pKb value, the stronger the base. As with the acid dissociation constant, pKa, the base dissociation constant calculation is an approximation that is only accurate in dilute solutions. Kb can be found using the following formula: Kb = [B+][OH-] / [BOH] which is obtained from the chemical equation: BH+ + OH− ⇌ B + H2OBut you already knew that, didn't you? I do make a mean vinaigrette. It goes with a fine word salad.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 5, 2020 17:14:06 GMT
Your own source says ... "The study found that individual and systematic changes in measuring temperature over time were the most significant source of uncertainty. Also contributing was the degree of weather station coverage. Data interpolation between stations contributed some uncertainty, as did the process of standardizing data that was collected with different methods at different points in history." Conveniently, you missed out the rest of that paragraph, here it is in full: "The study found that individual and systematic changes in measuring temperature over time were the most significant source of uncertainty. Also contributing was the degree of weather station coverage. Data interpolation between stations contributed some uncertainty, as did the process of standardizing data that was collected with different methods at different points in history. After adding these components together, GISTEMP’s uncertainty value in recent years was still less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, which is “very small,” Schmidt said."What? Lil' ol' me? As usual, a health warning: the casual reader ought to be reminded that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is being summarily rejected here by someone with an "open mind" enough to not think Darwin contributed anything to science, that Relativity is as fictional as a Warp Drive, and that cosmologists do not know how old the universe is LOL I am not attacking you Arlon, but your arguments and regular lack of substantiation for anything you opine. That's way to do it, see? All this blather above btw, is still not answering that outstanding question I have asked about that alternative theory of yours re: all that melting ice. Evasion noted. Fact: The warmest years globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 (tied), and 1998, respectively. Year-to-date global temperature comparison from the 2019 Annual Global Climate Report. Courtesy of NOAA NCEI. NASA also found that 2010-2019 was the hottest decade ever recorded. Scientists from the United Kingdom Met Office determined that 2019 was one of the top-three hottest years on record, and the World Meteorological Organization also ranked 2019 second warmest for the globe. An updated analysis of the annual UK temperature records from the Met Office shows that since 1884 all of the UK’s ten warmest years have occurred since 2002; whereas none of the ten coldest years have occurred since 1963. The first three months of this year were the second warmest in 141 years of record keeping.The instrumental temperature record provides the temperature of Earth's climate system from the historical network of in situ measurements of surface air temperatures and ocean surface temperatures. Data are collected at thousands of meteorological stations, buoys and ships around the globe.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 5, 2020 17:30:00 GMT
Patient Knows you're Boring. Someone fetch the defibrillator. Unless of course, you were referring to this: pKb Definition in Chemistry
pKb is the negative base-10 logarithm of the base dissociation constant (Kb) of a solution. It is used to determine the strength of a base or alkaline solution. pKb = -log10Kb The lower the pKb value, the stronger the base. As with the acid dissociation constant, pKa, the base dissociation constant calculation is an approximation that is only accurate in dilute solutions. Kb can be found using the following formula: Kb = [B+][OH-] / [BOH] which is obtained from the chemical equation: BH+ + OH− ⇌ B + H2OBut you already knew that, didn't you? I do make a mean vinaigrette. LOL!
|
|