<Mort> : you people are stupid not me - i am just dishonest and shameless. I always knew that <ybr> is our super daddy and we low lives losers can run but not hide.

I have saved all this refutation in the forum of <johnlspouge> and perhaps i would post it in the forum of <troller> too.

Just using two sentences <johnlspouge> had shown that <omv argument> is very stupid

2) after that the final nail in coffin was to show that concept of personal god is stupid , no one has ever explained in any sensible way , even theoretically , how personal god can be 'seen'/'perceived'/experienced.

Philosophy of Absolute on the other hand - not only it explains theoretically how to 'see'/'perceive' ultimate/deepest reality , in every century many people supposedly actually 'see ' it.

Because <big pawn>/<george wallace> knows that his pets/wives like <gezafan>/<sugardom>/<keyser soze> are stupid , he starts raving and ranting <read all these posts and see for yourself what <johnlspouge> said>

That is why instead of using name of <johnlspouge> , i used names of <x> and <z> as the presenter of refutation.

2 lines refutation , show me where is the answer to these 2 lines, i ask and <bp>/<gw> and his pets/wives are effectively shut up (at most they are reduced to memes, gifs, insults throwing trolls with no brains/intelligence and hence incapable of answering refutation)

2) 'right ' thing to do , 'need of moment ' - what is that?

Homosapiens have compassion built in there 'system ' - in their genes. Dna does not change after birth , but genes change (you can google that - epigenetics ). As we expand in purity of heart by dissolving anger, pride , greed etc, our genes change and eventually , we become compassion and intelligence in action and become 'impersonal'/dispassionate (level of jesus (you can replace jesus by any other person , real or imaginary , that works for you ))

So , now we are in a place where we want freedom, justice, prosperity , happiness etc for everyone . So , that is the basis/foundation for 'need of moment ' ('right' thing to do ) at every moment.

And at that level , we also have intelligence to know the 'need of moment' ('right' thing to do)

Well, if you reach high level of purity of heart by dissolving anger, fear , pride , anxiety, greed etc , you would know what jesus is talking about in bible and you would have a very good idea of what jesus was like.

Aren't you missing something, <keypusher> ?

2) you say like <jesus was very influential , his influence spread very quickly like a wild fire and very widely>

So , why was he influential ? Did you ask yourself that or you completely missed the only point that matters about jesus?

Do you think that jesus was influential because of the things you posted in this post of yours ? All that you posted here , which you call his teachings , can that nonsense which you label as teachings really influence anyone ?

If you want to know what jesus was like , then you need to look for the answer to the question "why was jesus so influential ?"

Of course you and i both know that all those stories about resurrection , walking on water and other miracles are laughable children's stories . So if we discount those stupid stories , was jesus influential because some idiots believed stupid stories (and still do) or there was something else which was cause of his influence - that is where you guys need to focus.

2) and focus of <nok> on his political thoughts/actions is completely ridoculous.

There is no reason to believe that jesus ever expressed any political thoughts publicly. Take the example of raman mahrishi - he spent all years of his long life in colonial india under imperial british rule (except last 3 years of his life) , however , he never talked about anything political , never got involved in politics - he was one of the greatest spiritual sages of modern india and there are many , many such examples.

3) jesus was killed because of his spiritual views , not because of his political view/actions - a simple google search would reveal that.

<Keypusher> and <diademas> are like : 1) anything that is written in bible has little historical significance. So from that perspective , there is no reason to believe that jesus existed.

2) so , let us discount bible

3) however , it is highly probable that jesus existed because reverence for him spread very fast like fire and spread very widely.

Me : ok. Fair enough. I am listening. Go on pleass.

<Keypusher> and <didaemas> are like : 4) well, now let us try to figure out what jesus was like.

5) and for that , let us go through bible

Me : 1)gentleman , isn't your point (5) contradicting your point (2)?

It is.

2) earlier , you guys said like <only way to know what jesus was like is divine intervention>

Well, divine intervention is sufficient but not necessary - high level of maturity and clarity/depth of understanding would also do.

I know someone who has that kind of maturity and he is not at all spiritual . He got that level of maturity by observing life/world and his own mind independently without ever formally studying psychology/spirituality/philosophy etc.

And he understands that part of bible when told to him which requires that kind of maturity to understand that part of bible.

So , from historical perspective , bible is worthless . However , from the perspective of 'philosophy'/spirituality , some part of bible is very mature.

You guys are focusing on that part of bible which is not only worthless from the perspective of 'philosophy'/spirituality but worthless from the perspective of history as well .

Suck it up and own it, buttercups.>

Once again , <george wallace>/<big pawn> talking extremely stupid nonsense. Here is the refutation , once again.

<objective moral value> : at every moment , there is 'need of moment' - 'right' thing to do....(do the 'right' thing , we often hear) 2) 'right ' thing to do , 'need of moment ' - what is that?

Homosapiens have compassion built in there 'system ' - in their genes. Dna does not change after birth , but genes change (you can google that - epigenetics ). As we expand in purity of heart by dissolving anger, pride , greed etc, our genes change and eventually , we become compassion and intelligence in action and become 'impersonal'/dispassionate (level of jesus (you can replace jesus by any other person , real or imaginary , that works for you ))

So , now we are in a place where we want freedom, justice, prosperity , happiness etc for everyone . So , that is the basis/foundation for 'need of moment ' ('right' thing to do ) at every moment.

And at that level , we also have intelligence to know the 'need of moment' ('right' thing to do)

Of course , because atheist libs say like <my conscience, compassion tells me that coffee is better than tea>

https://chesstempo.com/tactical-mot...

(all the Mate-xxx themes).

A great site for tactical training.

Thanks for the steer to the named mates.

I started my collection when I first arrived on CG, basically as a self-tutorial. The link to [ https://chesstempo.com/tactical-mot... ] is impressive in its thoroughness. To minimize the burden on memory, I would have minimized unnecessary distinctions by abstracting a little (e.g., it matters little which piece supports the piece giving mate, whether a Ks flight square is occupied by its own piece or covered by an enemy, etc.). In any case, I can use it as a reference in future. Thanks.

Nothing I write provides an irrefutable demonstration of any substantial hypothesis about any particular temperature records. I just aim to demonstrate that general methods from hypothesis testing in statistics can demonstrate a systematic influence on temperature records, even in the presence of large fluctuations, regardless of the random distribution of those fluctuations

X[0], X[1],…

consists of independent identically distributed random variables chosen from any continuous distribution then the probability that

X[n] is larger than X[0], X[1],…, X[n-1]

is 1/n. The proof is straightforward: all permutations of X[0], X[1],…, X[n] are equally likely, so the probability that X[n] is the largest is 1/n. We call X[n] a record.

Just in passing, the expected number of records up to n is as I said:

1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + … + 1/n ~ ln( n ),

(plus the Euler-Mascheroni constant in the limit, if you prefer details). The proof is instructive if you have not seen the impressive power of indicator random variables before.

Let I[n]=1 if X[n] is a record and 0 otherwise. Thus,

E[ I[n] ] = Pr( I[n]=1 ) = 1/n.

Then, the number of records up to time n is

N( n ) = I[1] + I[2] + … + I[n].

Take expectations to get the result. Notice that nothing depends on knowing the random distribution underlying

X[0], X[1],…

Such statistical results are called non-parametric, valid for a broad range of distributions.

But the technique could equally well be applied to the series of high temperatures for a given month (say, September), year by year, as measured there. Now we are talking about a much smaller set of numbers.

In any one such series the probability that this year's high for that month is the all-time high is 1/n, where n is the number of years of the series.

If this year's entry is a "record," that proves nothing. But if you check many such series, found from many weather stations, and this year's entry is a record in more than 1/n of them, that does prove something. (The same test could have been made in any prior year. I'm assuming for simplicity that the series are all of the same length, i.e., that all weather stations began making measurements at the same time.)

It proves that, over a wide region, the year in question was warmer than usual.

But we know that some years are warmer than others. That's not news.

However, if you were to apply this test to *all* monthly high temperature series in *all* recent years, and it showed that on average the number of record highs exceeded the expected number, that would indeed show that something -- presumably, climate change -- is making record high temperatures more common.

Is this what you have in mind? Have I got the methodology more or less right?

Have you carried you this test? If so, what data set did you use?

The record can be drawn from a distribution specific to a locale, so records for several locales can be examined simultaneously as you describe. There are a host of technical caveats in hypothesis testing, but the test *can* be done properly, to show objectively and quantitatively that the records must be subject to a systematic influence over time.

With regards to usage, yes, I recall a "real" paper exploiting records, but I have as good a chance as you of finding it now.

As usual, Wikipedia has a good article on p-values.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value ]

<Evidence instead suggests that temperatures have become slightly less variable as Earth has warmed, and climate models also predict a modest reduction in variability with warming over the coming century.[...]

Evidence from daily and monthly land surface temperature records over the last 50 years suggests that variability has been flat or slightly decreasing. This conclusion is based on looking at data from around 7,000 stations worldwide that report daily minimum and maximum temperatures. Over the same period, global land temperatures have warmed by almost 1 degrees C (1.8 F). The figure below shows global mean temperature by year in red and average annual variability across all stations in blue. Despite the rapid rise in temperatures, variability (shown in blue) has been decreasing.> https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...

It references https://www.nature.com/articles/nat..., the abstract of which says <Here we show that although fluctuations in annual temperature have indeed shown substantial geographical variation over the past few decades2, the time-evolving standard deviation of globally averaged temperature anomalies has been stable.>

At http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm I found a table listing the numbers of named Atlantic storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes by year in the period 1851-2017. A hurricane of course is the archetype of an extreme weather event.

I plotted all three series on a spreadsheet and fitted them to exponential curves. The first and third are increasing at about 0.4% per year, and the second at 0.25%.

[ https://messaging-custom-newsletter... ]