Top products from r/inthemorning

> We are told to take the testimony by faith for both. They are the experts in the field after all.

No you're not. You can demand evidence. You can look for it yourself. You can ask a scientist for evidence.

> You're right. Oh my gosh. The pope shouldn't be taken at his word. You should DEMAND evidence before accepting a word he says. Oh, wait. How is that different here?

No one is demanding that you accept anything on faith. If you really want, you can take the time to find and understand the evidence.

> Nope, consensus mean nothing and is literally a fallacy if you rely on it. Appeal to authority. That is why I mentioned the pope.

You still don't understand the difference between an expert testimony on consensus and an appeal to authority fallacy. The difference is the expert has to and can show what he knows by demonstrating it and pointing to peer reviewed science that demonstrates what is known. That is not a fallacy.

> I have, have you?

I have and I can explain it. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the basics.

> Malthusians have been doing the same thing. Granted, I think they are honest for the most part just like chicken little. Just falling trap to confirmation bias and selection bias.

The properties and effects of Co2 as a greenhouse gas were discovered and predicted 150 years ago. . Simple physics and OLR budget models predicted and confirmed what we observe today. Scientists have looked at and accounted for all the data. There is no cherry picking going on except by deniers.

> First, complexity like climate requires cherry picking. The data literally has to be scrubbed, correct and all that. Second, cherry picking like sounding the alarm on hot days but really quiet or having a polar vortex when it is cold. Hot causes cold too after all.

No peer reviewed science literature cherry picks hot or cold days. All data is adjusted, is necessary, and scientifically justified to correct for inconsistencies introduced by instrument changes, moves, time of measurement changes, urbanization around instruments, etc. There is no conspiracy here. Further, the methodology and results for the adjustments are published in peer reviewed literature. If something is wrong, it will get caught and corrected. If someone thinks the methodology and results are wrong, they can publish an article to explain why. They only cherry picking here is deniers pointing to cold days and throwing snowballs in congress.

> Like appeal to authority?

I already explained this to you but you have failed to understand the context it is valid to cite experts and when it is not valid by citing people who boost their authority by citing credentials, titles, positions held, etc.

> Like those evil oil companies hiding the truth?

This has been demonstrated and isn't a conspiracy. Further it has no features of a conspiracy.

> Sure. But by how much. I warmed a pool by peeing in it. Did the temperature change enough to be significant or measurable?

You can read about it here and here
> So you can't think of another explanation? If I told you the inferred radiation on something decreased, you can only think that the object must be insulated?

This is confirmed by measuring the long wave radiation absorbing properties of all gases contained in our atmosphere with a spectrometer. If something else is insulating the atmosphere, please indicate what it is using reason and evidence and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

> I will take your word on that and the people financially depended on it too.
> Wait, what am I saying. I need to see this simple measure demonstrated over time. I need proof.
>No, you have the proof of evidence. You are making the claim. Mine is a claim of agnosticism. I don't claim to know EITHER way, nor do I think anyone else does either. But like I said, heat output decreasing doesn't mean heating up. If there is less exhaust from my car, it doesn't mean the exhaust is blocked, maybe the car isn't on.

You can look it up here and follow the references if necessary. If the sun stays reletivilty constant and the decrease in outgoing radiation has occurred and we know GHGs absorb long wave radiation, and GHGs have increased, that is the proof. That's the published research. If you believe that is wrong or there is another explanation, please demonstrate it with reason and evidence.

> There is. I made it. Just because a group of experts says something is true, they have seen the evidence, doesn't make it true.

The evidence says it's true and it is there for you to look at it but you don't.

> Like polar vortexes? God, AGW caused that extreme cold.

It is apparent you don't understand what is being claimed and haven't read the research on it.

> No, you want me to change my mind without said evidence. Live by faith I will not do.

No one has or is asking you to believe with out evidence. The evidence has been pointed out to you in various levels of expertise with reference where the data and research is published. You're just being intentionally obtuse.

> I have and I know that I don't know and can't know for the time being.

Can't know because you refuse to accept evidence or look up the data and referred journal citations in the links already provided you.

> Only because I haven't bought your explanation. Have you, or is this only a one way street? I am the infidel that must repent? That doesn't sound like good faith at all. All you have said is these experts have said it is true and the numbers they provided prove it. That isn't very good evidence.

I used to be a denier because I didn't understand the science and was mislead by denier arguments. I actually looked at the peer reviewed research and made an effort to understand it and changed my mind. It is apparent after examining the denier arguments that they misinform, cherry pick data, engage in logical fallacies, and engage in conspiracies. I haven't seen you demonstrate a good faith effort to make even a basic understanding of the science and even dismiss everything I show you and demand proof when it is there for you to lookup and see how the science is done to demonstrate what is known about climate.

> No, only scientific consensus as science. It isn't, so I am actually defending it. You are the only denigrating it with appeal to authority as a tenant. rational thought and science is about personal discovery. Something I get told either can't be done, or I can't do it because I didn't come to the same airtight conclusions. THAT seems anti-science to me.

You don't understand what consensus means in a scientific context. You don't understand an appeal to authority. A consensus is about the reason and evidence as published in the peer reviewed literature. It's all there for you to consume. You don't appear to be about rational thought and personal discovery. I've only seen an anti-intellectual attitude and an unwillingness to engage in the scientific literature and repeated dismissals. You demand proof, but then you won't look at it or make any attempt to understand even the basics.

About 2 years ago JCD recommended the pentel energel. ACC said he tried it and it was great. I bought them and it's all I use. But JCD has moved on lol

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CMO1HR2/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_DLuoyb0XFBC2S

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud. The heart attack gun was the first thing I thought of when I saw the news and given his background.

Thanks for the recommended article. I also pre-ordered his book on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

The speculation that the interest in alternate universe coincides with the Amazon TV Show based on PKDicks's Man in the high castle as lefties tend to like scifi, and have Amazon services.

Oddly enough from another 'friend' I also got the alternate universe spiel. It really is a thing.

Paper mate ink joy

There are a ton of options on Amazon

Here's one:
Paper Mate InkJoy 500 Retractable Ballpoint Pen, Medium Point, Black, 12-Count https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005SN74M6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qitoyb1D7SP80

I'll plug Uncle Don's book. It's a fascinating read.

https://skills-store.amazon.com/deeplink/dp/B071KX2VY1?deviceType=app&share&refSuffix=ss_copy

"Alexa, ask No Agenda to play the most recent episode"

Enable this skill. https://www.amazon.com/Graymatter-Industries-No-Agenda/dp/B071KX2VY1

The Saudis spending money at Trump's hotels is strictly pro-forma tribute...small potatoes, in the Big Picture.

Trump is after The Prize

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071KX2VY1/

in the show notes : Alexa No Agenda Skill-Jake Lester

I believe that [this is the twitter] (https://twitter.com/jakelstr) of the producer:, and his personal site

No, no. It's rigged. The Brazil flameout came as a surprise to a lot of people. By the time you get to even the quarter finals a lot of the matches go to penalties simply because the teams are so evenly matched at that point. For Brazil to be beaten 7-1 is so outside the norm that something had to be going on. I can't figure out what, though. If you're really interested, read The Fix by Declan Hill.

https://www.amazon.com/Fdit-Digital-Dashboard-Electronic-Calendar/dp/B07CR7FNW6

>You do realize we live in the era of social media, right?

You do realize you're talking to one of the guys that puts on the big bulky suit and hopes the guy behind bme doesn't smash a paper bag so I shit myself right?

There are RULES for dealing with these things - rule #1 is you don't trust homemade bang bangs. Rule #2 is you evacuate and don't use anything electronic within 500 feet.

The fact that you can't find me a single fucking example, even though there are tons of bomb callouts each month proves my point.

I don't speak well. Everyone has faults. Yours just happens to be science education.

You publicly criticize everyone and everything during the show. But are incredibly thin skinned when people criticize you. Are you a douche to the people you criticize?

I think you are incredibly insightful at times, while incredibly thickheaded at others.

You need to accept sometimes you are wrong and freely admit it. It isn't an attack if you are wrong about something. It doesn't mean I am any less of a fan. It just means you're human.

If you want to get started learning about science, can I recommend two things? Cosmos and Demon Haunted World.