It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Ted Cruz is running for President and is targeting the the lowest common denominator voters
After hearing his plan for the white house it is clear that he is targeting the simple voters the religious voters. This group he is targeting can be labeled the fox news viewers the people that look at facts and data and dismiss them because it clashes with their faith. His speech sounded more like something you hear from one of those Mega-churches in the south with god being tossed every which way and "if you can imagine", which clearly they can because they think there is a god, heaven/hell a snake tricked a women to eat an apple ect... This could be harmful for the countries image, we look at the middle east and say shit about them for being craziest religious while here in the States a liked mind person just said he is running for President.
.frenchyDude, the thing Ted Cruz said is exactly what you just pretty much admitted was right... All he said was the past 15 or so years the earth hasn't really warmed, so don't say he isn't right, omg your dad knows about this that means you must know everything there is about climate change!!!!
Soooo fucking funny that in every political thread on NS its 95% liberals. But half of the posters either A.) Cant vote yet or B.) aren't from the United States.... Hahahhaha.
ok, so I'll admit I didn't look up what he said or any of the data about warming not happening until now. I'm not an expert in the field of climate change but did take a healthy number of related classes over my university career. I do, however, know a thing or two about statistics. Now that I've actually looked at the data and what he said I can point out the massive flaw. (besides what I've already said about not being able to use a short term trend as a substitute for long term results)
So. I really have nothing better to do here so I'll make this take an embarrassing amount of time.
Here's a fictional data sequence to work with:
random sequence of numbers between 0 and 30 sorted from lowest to highest. there's no disagreeing about the trend.
Now let's put an anomaly in the data.
If one sill looks at the data as a whole a single outlier won't really make much difference to a large data set, the r2 value will be lower, but that's about it. You can still safely assume the trend you see to be correct.
The danger is then when you focus in on one small section of a data set and say that the trend you see in that area is correct without looking at any of the data to either side. So if you focus in on the the section starting from the outlier and onwards it will look something like this:
Look the data shows there is no more upward trend. The slope of the regression is pretty much zero.
Does this mean the trend seen over the whole of the data has stopped? Of course not. 1 anomaly just makes it appear that way when looking at the data from that point forward.
A better way to represent the data (which is used in climate sciences) might be to do a moving average. So for each point along the x-axis an average will be represented for the past x amount of y values. For our data let's use 5. This is what you'd use to more or less smooth out data, primarily data over time, so it gets rid of the noise of short term trends caused by anomalies and such.
Then you get something like this:
So we can zoom in on any particular range we want and still get a far more accurate representation of the trend at that point. For instance we can now focus on the last portion of the data and get a good idea of what the trend is actually doing at this point.
So how does all this matter at all? Well turns out 1998 is an anomaly year. An El Nino year that just doesn't fit in since it was far warmer than one would expect. So, like in our example, you can start looking from 1998 onwards and make it seem like there is no warming trend.
To rectify this you can just look at the moving average (10 years is pretty common in climate science I just found out), and you can get something like this:
look from 1998 onwards.
It also helps explain why 9 of the last 10 hottest years on record have been since 1998. 1998 filling out the 10 at number 4. Also that the 2000's has been the hottest decade on record.
It's really a matter of data interpretation. It's super easy to lie with statistics, and saying warming has stopped because you're looking at data starting from 1998 is a good example of how to do that.
Anyways, take this as you will. Just wasting my time on the internet, it was between this or porn.
NickyToorI don't fucking watch cnn and my mom doesn't tell me anything. I keep informed about politics myself and make my own opinions. It is my opinion that the Republican Party IN GENERAL has moved farther right from what they used to be. I know the tea party doesn't represent the whole Republican Party, which is why I said there are some rational and reasonable republicans earlier. Also, I don't think it is profiling to say that I would rather have a candidate from my party win then one from the other. I agree that blindly following either party is a bad idea. People should look into both parties first and decide which one suits them better. I would also say that to avoid misinformation people should not watch cnn or fox. However, it's fairly impossible to avoid all the political program da.
but you didn't say you would "rather" have your candidate win, you said they would be better, in pretty black and white terms. There is a difference
I'm also really curious as to where you get your news from that is completely politically unbiased, because I refuse to believe that such a network exists. Unless you're 16 year old self is out there in DC digging for the truth and asking all the tough questions. will I see you at the white house for Obama's next address?
props to Vinnie for writing that out... You have some good points.
Either way, Cruz won't be the guy running against Hillary. So I really don't care all too much, I just agree with a good chunk of his views. I do believe there is climate change though, so all you saying i'm a moron because I don't believe in climate change can just stahp.
I think everyone in here kept it classy except for Dingo, DingoTheDouche strikes again!
Dude, the thing Ted Cruz said is exactly what you just pretty much admitted was right... All he said was the past 15 or so years the earth hasn't really warmed, so don't say he isn't right, omg your dad knows about this that means you must know everything there is about climate change!!!!
Soooo fucking funny that in every political thread on NS its 95% liberals. But half of the posters either A.) Cant vote yet or B.) aren't from the United States.... Hahahhaha.
FWIW I think cruz is way too much of a tea party nut to get very far. Republicans already have a harder chance nowadays, nevermind one wayyyy to the right like cruz.
VinnieFok, so I'll admit I didn't look up what he said or any of the data about warming not happening until now. I'm not an expert in the field of climate change but did take a healthy number of related classes over my university career. I do, however, know a thing or two about statistics. Now that I've actually looked at the data and what he said I can point out the massive flaw. (besides what I've already said about not being able to use a short term trend as a substitute for long term results)
So. I really have nothing better to do here so I'll make this take an embarrassing amount of time.
Here's a fictional data sequence to work with:
random sequence of numbers between 0 and 30 sorted from lowest to highest. there's no disagreeing about the trend.
Now let's put an anomaly in the data.
If one sill looks at the data as a whole a single outlier won't really make much difference to a large data set, the r2 value will be lower, but that's about it. You can still safely assume the trend you see to be correct.
The danger is then when you focus in on one small section of a data set and say that the trend you see in that area is correct without looking at any of the data to either side. So if you focus in on the the section starting from the outlier and onwards it will look something like this:
Look the data shows there is no more upward trend. The slope of the regression is pretty much zero.
Does this mean the trend seen over the whole of the data has stopped? Of course not. 1 anomaly just makes it appear that way when looking at the data from that point forward.
A better way to represent the data (which is used in climate sciences) might be to do a moving average. So for each point along the x-axis an average will be represented for the past x amount of y values. For our data let's use 5. This is what you'd use to more or less smooth out data, primarily data over time, so it gets rid of the noise of short term trends caused by anomalies and such.
Then you get something like this:
So we can zoom in on any particular range we want and still get a far more accurate representation of the trend at that point. For instance we can now focus on the last portion of the data and get a good idea of what the trend is actually doing at this point.
So how does all this matter at all? Well turns out 1998 is an anomaly year. An El Nino year that just doesn't fit in since it was far warmer than one would expect. So, like in our example, you can start looking from 1998 onwards and make it seem like there is no warming trend.
To rectify this you can just look at the moving average (10 years is pretty common in climate science I just found out), and you can get something like this:
look from 1998 onwards.
It also helps explain why 9 of the last 10 hottest years on record have been since 1998. 1998 filling out the 10 at number 4. Also that the 2000's has been the hottest decade on record.
It's really a matter of data interpretation. It's super easy to lie with statistics, and saying warming has stopped because you're looking at data starting from 1998 is a good example of how to do that.
Anyways, take this as you will. Just wasting my time on the internet, it was between this or porn.
I think everyone knew this already lol. Of course a 15 year pause shows nothing to a long term trend. At the end of the day though Sen. Cruz's statement was true. It's semantics, this argument sucks. Everyone knows what he was insinuating.
plyswthsqrrlsbut you didn't say you would "rather" have your candidate win, you said they would be better, in pretty black and white terms. There is a difference
I'm also really curious as to where you get your news from that is completely politically unbiased, because I refuse to believe that such a network exists. Unless you're 16 year old self is out there in DC digging for the truth and asking all the tough questions. will I see you at the white house for Obama's next address?
Of course I said she would be better. I'm a liberal. I think she's better. Obviously that's just an opinion and I can't prove that. I wasn't trying to state that as a fact, just as my opinion. I don't get my news from a totally nonbiased source. I don't think one exists. I try to get my news from the least biased source, usually the paper and online. Also, my dad has had the opportunity to talk to several members of congress, so I hear some about politics without any part of the media influencing it. And no, plane tickets are too expensive.
BombogenesisFWIW I think cruz is way too much of a tea party nut to get very far. Republicans already have a harder chance nowadays, nevermind one wayyyy to the right like cruz.
Well I know Cruz has no chance in winning, I just love hoe all these peoples pantys get in such a knot because he is in the race... Good fuckin shit.
.frenchyHe will have my vote 100% and I have wanted him to run for a couple years now. Fuck yeah.
downrate me pussies!!!!
Repeal obamacare, fuck the immigrants, pro 2A. CRUZ CONTROL
you're clearly a staunch republican which probably means you believe in economics over everything. if you had any basic economic understanding in the slightest, you'd realize how fucking stupid "fuck the immigrants" is. They create competition which makes the economy stronger, more efficient and more competitive on a global scale. Just cuz lazy rednecks down south lose their jobs to people who are willing to work hard for low pay, doesn't mean the immigrants are "stealing jobs" they're just getting them because they work harder.
OH.HollidayJust cuz lazy rednecks down south lose their jobs to people who are willing to work hard for low pay, doesn't mean the immigrants are "stealing jobs" they're just getting them because they work harder.
I'm sorry but I've never seen or heard of a lazy redneck? Maybe lazy white trash ? Redneck= sunburnt neck from working outside, so I doubt they're that lazy....
.frenchyI'm sorry but I've never seen or heard of a lazy redneck? Maybe lazy white trash ? Redneck= sunburnt neck from working outside, so I doubt they're that lazy....
Rednecks are harder workin than you lol
nothin like avoiding an obviously superior argument by correcting one insignificant piece of it.
redneck=white trash=uneducated white person=the problem with this country
Im not sure if you're aware but you can also get a sunburn sitting in a lawn chair crushing brewskis. and as far as rednecks working harder than me..... similar to most of your arguments, you're speaking on a topic you know absolutely nothing about
.frenchyWell I know Cruz has no chance in winning, I just love hoe all these peoples pantys get in such a knot because he is in the race... Good fuckin shit.
VOTE TED ! ! ! TED 4 PREZ
I know they're acting like a black guy wants to run for president.
DingoSeanBut if you live in Flushing Queens or LoDo Denver or South LA or Central Miami, you don't exactly need a fucking AR15 in your apartment, buddy.
Dude, the thing Ted Cruz said is exactly what you just pretty much admitted was right... All he said was the past 15 or so years the earth hasn't really warmed, so don't say he isn't right, omg your dad knows about this that means you must know everything there is about climate change!!!!
Soooo fucking funny that in every political thread on NS its 95% liberals. But half of the posters either A.) Cant vote yet or B.) aren't from the United States.... Hahahhaha.
He took a fact out of context, and why do you think he did that, because he believes in global warming?
I'm pretty far left but I'm rooting for Ted Cruz. Anyone who can steal support from other Republican candidates while having no chance of actually winning gets my support.
ObeseBunnyI'm pretty far left but I'm rooting for Ted Cruz. Anyone who can steal support from other Republican candidates while having no chance of actually winning gets my support.
Honestly this may be the first election where I really 100% hate both parties equally. I hope to god hillary dosent win. At least I liked oboma better than mit.
Good_DeedAfter hearing his plan for the white house it is clear that he is targeting the simple voters the religious voters. This group he is targeting can be labeled the fox news viewers the people that look at facts and data and dismiss them because it clashes with their faith. His speech sounded more like something you hear from one of those Mega-churches in the south with god being tossed every which way and "if you can imagine", which clearly they can because they think there is a god, heaven/hell a snake tricked a women to eat an apple ect... This could be harmful for the countries image, we look at the middle east and say shit about them for being craziest religious while here in the States a liked mind person just said he is running for President.
If you can't master simple grammar then why should I trust your political views?
If that chart wasn't graphed down to the hundredth it wouldn't be such a dramatic upward trend. It only shows 100 years. And the temp has only changed about .75 degrees celsius in those 100 years
milk_manIf that chart wasn't graphed down to the hundredth it wouldn't be such a dramatic upward trend. It only shows 100 years. And the temp has only changed about .75 degrees celsius in those 100 years
You know, what if climate change isn't real and we just create a better earth with less pollution and less need on non renewable energy. Man that would suck
UglyboyYou know, what if climate change isn't real and we just create a better earth with less pollution and less need on non renewable energy. Man that would suck
I am truly all for living simple lifestyles. In 30 years I plan to be living almost completely off the land in the woods. No joke.
But with the lifestyle we as Americans live today, we HAVE to have fossil fuels. We use such a ridiculous amount of energy.. I honestly don't think it's possible for us to go completely or even mostly renewable, unless we start consuming A LOT less energy.
milk_manI am truly all for living simple lifestyles. In 30 years I plan to be living almost completely off the land in the woods. No joke.
But with the lifestyle we as Americans live today, we HAVE to have fossil fuels. We use such a ridiculous amount of energy.. I honestly don't think it's possible for us to go completely or even mostly renewable, unless we start consuming A LOT less energy.
Not true. The problem with current clean energy is efficiency. A solar panel will produce electricity for 20 years, however after 25 it will pay off itself. So you're losing money. All energy companies see is lost revenue.
UglyboyNot true. The problem with current clean energy is efficiency. A solar panel will produce electricity for 20 years, however after 25 it will pay off itself. So you're losing money. All energy companies see is lost revenue.
Exactly, the technology is super expensive even though it is subsidized by the government
milk_manExactly, the technology is super expensive even though it is subsidized by the government
Pretty much. The UN can pass all its protocols and international law it wants. People can go green and stop driving cars. But the second coal becomes more expensive than green energy will be used. This is why I think the only way to combat climate change on a global level is to tax coal. And this is coming from an Australian whose economy avoided recession due to mining. Money is the only factor that will affect peoples decision to green on the mainstream level.
In Australia we had the carbon tax and everyone used less electricity. It was great. But then he repealed it and we're basically fucked again
UglyboyPretty much. The UN can pass all its protocols and international law it wants. People can go green and stop driving cars. But the second coal becomes more expensive than green energy will be used. This is why I think the only way to combat climate change on a global level is to tax coal. And this is coming from an Australian whose economy avoided recession due to mining. Money is the only factor that will affect peoples decision to green on the mainstream level.
In Australia we had the carbon tax and everyone used less electricity. It was great. But then he repealed it and we're basically fucked again
How did your government get more retarded right wing than ours so fast?
UglyboyNot true. The problem with current clean energy is efficiency. A solar panel will produce electricity for 20 years, however after 25 it will pay off itself. So you're losing money. All energy companies see is lost revenue.
boy
you sure spend a lot of time pretendin to be an all knowing adult
have had solar panels on the crib for a year and 1/2
due to net metering we only recieve an $8 electric bill
and instead of giving rocky mountain burn coal for electricity $$$
and being part of the shitty air problem
i have a home equity loan on the syste whose payment is less than the average of our lectric bill
that shit started payin off day 1
and has added value and equity to our crib
it's similiar to the paying rent for something you will never own
vrs. getting your shit togather and purchasing a house and paying a mortgage
SFBv420.0boy
you sure spend a lot of time pretendin to be an all knowing adult
have had solar panels on the crib for a year and 1/2
due to net metering we only recieve an $8 electric bill
and instead of giving rocky mountain burn coal for electricity $$$
and being part of the shitty air problem
i have a home equity loan on the syste whose payment is less than the average of our lectric bill
that shit started payin off day 1
and has added value and equity to our crib
it's similiar to the paying rent for something you will never own
vrs. getting your shit togather and purchasing a house and paying a mortgage
I'm not talking about subsidised solar panels for your home. Offcourse their cheap. The government subsidises them. However for an energy company to invest in solar the government doesn't subsidise them. Which I was talking about. Boom, mind blown
UglyboyI'm not talking about subsidised solar panels for your home. Offcourse their cheap. The government subsidises them. However for an energy company to invest in solar the government doesn't subsidise them. Which I was talking about. Boom, mind blown
UglyboyI'm not talking about subsidised solar panels for your home. Offcourse their cheap. The government subsidises them. However for an energy company to invest in solar the government doesn't subsidise them. Which I was talking about. Boom, mind blown
you're an even bigger dumbass than me, and that's hard to do.
It's generally stated that it takes 10 years for them to "pay for themselves". But the concept of "paying for themselves" is a primitive concept used by those who do not understand finances. You're still losing money when it "pays for itself". A more appropriate analysis would be the "Internal Rate of Return" calculations, Excel makes this calculation easy. Overall, solar power is expensive power and works out about 38 cents per kwh ( proper economic estimates typically place it between 23 cents to 45 cents per kwh ). Some idiot here will insist solar doesn't cost that much per kwh, it does unless you're uneducated in finance.
Note, it's also not clear if the energy produced by solar panels exceeds the energy required for their manufacture, delivery and installation. It takes a lot of energy to melt silicon and the costs triple if you try to recycle the toxic wastes which is why the panels are made where it's still possible to dispose of the toxic wastes. They could very well be causing more environmental damage then they save.
With the Europeans what happens is the feed in tariffs makes the solar panels worthwhile. They still don't really pay for themselves but they allow you to take some of the tax money from your neighbors, a bit of an ethical dilemma really but ethics never stopped Europeans.
UglyboyIt's generally stated that it takes 10 years for them to "pay for themselves". But the concept of "paying for themselves" is a primitive concept used by those who do not understand finances. You're still losing money when it "pays for itself". A more appropriate analysis would be the "Internal Rate of Return" calculations, Excel makes this calculation easy. Overall, solar power is expensive power and works out about 38 cents per kwh ( proper economic estimates typically place it between 23 cents to 45 cents per kwh ). Some idiot here will insist solar doesn't cost that much per kwh, it does unless you're uneducated in finance.
Note, it's also not clear if the energy produced by solar panels exceeds the energy required for their manufacture, delivery and installation. It takes a lot of energy to melt silicon and the costs triple if you try to recycle the toxic wastes which is why the panels are made where it's still possible to dispose of the toxic wastes. They could very well be causing more environmental damage then they save.
With the Europeans what happens is the feed in tariffs makes the solar panels worthwhile. They still don't really pay for themselves but they allow you to take some of the tax money from your neighbors, a bit of an ethical dilemma really but ethics never stopped Europeans.
omg wow dude your really smart, glad you know how to use google and big words.
UglyboyIt's generally stated that it takes 10 years for them to "pay for themselves". But the concept of "paying for themselves" is a primitive concept used by those who do not understand finances. You're still losing money when it "pays for itself". A more appropriate analysis would be the "Internal Rate of Return" calculations, Excel makes this calculation easy. Overall, solar power is expensive power and works out about 38 cents per kwh ( proper economic estimates typically place it between 23 cents to 45 cents per kwh ). Some idiot here will insist solar doesn't cost that much per kwh, it does unless you're uneducated in finance.
Note, it's also not clear if the energy produced by solar panels exceeds the energy required for their manufacture, delivery and installation. It takes a lot of energy to melt silicon and the costs triple if you try to recycle the toxic wastes which is why the panels are made where it's still possible to dispose of the toxic wastes. They could very well be causing more environmental damage then they save.
With the Europeans what happens is the feed in tariffs makes the solar panels worthwhile. They still don't really pay for themselves but they allow you to take some of the tax money from your neighbors, a bit of an ethical dilemma really but ethics never stopped Europeans.
annnddd youre wrong. Here in the USA, we have a tax credit that pays for 90% of your solar panel costs, but you still have to have the cash to buy it in the first place. So within one year, you get almost all of your money back. On top of that, you are reimbursed for any excess power you make that goes back into the grid. Its usually only $5-20 a month, but you also have no electricity bill.
And tax credits are used for a shit ton of different causes, if you think every use of taxes is somehow unethical, you should love Tony Abott.
Lord_Byronannnddd youre wrong. Here in the USA, we have a tax credit that pays for 90% of your solar panel costs, but you still have to have the cash to buy it in the first place. So within one year, you get almost all of your money back. On top of that, you are reimbursed for any excess power you make that goes back into the grid. Its usually only $5-20 a month, but you also have no electricity bill.
And tax credits are used for a shit ton of different causes, if you think every use of taxes is somehow unethical, you should love Tony Abott.
Again, I'm not talking about personal consumption. I'm talking about energy companies investing in creating solar energy.
zzzskizzzI'm a little out of my element here, but how is nuclear fusion not creating energy I'm actually curious?
It depends on how you define "energy" and "create." Technically, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, you can't create energy, you can only convert it from one form to another. Some forms are more readily recognized as "energy" like heat and electricity, but there are other forms too - energy exists in chemical bonds, in motion, and in mass, as Einstein showed us (E = mc^2).
In terms of usable energy, though, yes fusion creates usable energy, because heat is useful for our purposes and mass is largely not.
zzzskizzzI'm a little out of my element here, but how is nuclear fusion not creating energy I'm actually curious?
It all boils down to e=MC^2
Every single atom has the ability to change from Mass (M) into pure energy (e).
Its easier to understand if you look at nuclear fission first. In fission, the atom's nucleus is split apart, releasing massive amounts of energy. This energy is about .00001% or some other small ass number of the potential energy the atom has. That's pretty efficient compared to a combustion engine burning gas, which is estimated to be something like .00000000000001% of the potential energy converted.
In fusion the goal is 1-3% efficiency, which is what the sun is doing right now. It is fusing 2 Hydrogen atoms nuclei together creating Helium. Due to the electron changing energy levels, (very simply put it gets blown off and flies around until it can find something new to attach itself to), a photon is released. That photon carries a small amount of energy we see as sunlight. Per atom, theres a lot, but not a ridiculous amount of energy released for every fusion. About enough to power a big city for a year. But add that up between trillions on trillions of atoms, and you get the Sun.
Our goal is to input a massive amount of energy using a giant laser simulating the crushing gravity of the sun's core, and fuse one pair of hydrogen atoms, capturing the photon released in the process, and its energy. The first fusion would require so much power, and our capture methods are so weak, it could cost 10x more energy to start the fusion than we would get out of it.
The next step though, is smart. We use the gained energy to re-fire the laser, this time requiring a smaller portion of man-made energy, and repeat this until its running on its own, and eventually capture all the excess. However this would require tech we aren't even close to having, as of right now we can kind of sort of maybe fuse one pair of atoms.
And even if the chain of fusion was started, it would follow the law of conservation of energy and mass, thereby it wouldn't "create" energy. It would be converting potential energy from the mass of the Hydrogen fuel it would use, which we have a lot of and is cheap as fuck. Especially by the atom.
The energy itself, and the process of how a photon comes out of an electron, isn't very well understood. We know how it relates to mass, but we don't really get the how or why. The large hadron colider in Cern in Switzerland, recently confirmed the existance of the Higg's Boson particle, which is located in protons and neutrons, and is believed to be the actual bridge between energy and mass. Also maybe the source of gravity. It was a big deal.
Realistically, we could fuse atoms and release energy within about 2 years. But the financial investment, energy needed, and effort wouldn't be worth the payout. We could see the first energy chain within 20 years, and possibly see fusion powering homes within 50.
