Timeline of Earth's Recent Average Temperatures

Hmmm, knowing what you know why do you think they might release that statement?

Same reason big tobacco industry releases similar concession statements. Best interest of the business. Good Will is an asset. Plus they can get on board and profit by rebadging as green as well as mitigate the trillion dollar class action lawsuits which are inevitable.

There is scant little I miss.
 
Same reason big tobacco industry releases similar concession statements. Best interest of the business. Good Will is an asset. Plus they can get on board and profit by rebadging as green as well as mitigate the trillion dollar class action lawsuits which are inevitable.

There is scant little I miss.

I disagree with you on that, I don't think that's a concession statement, I think they're positioning themselves.
 
In other words by your lack of a comeback you admit that I am right and you have no clue, and in fact can't respond........................

LOL, another genius washes the drool off of their shirt

Sorry my analogy went over your head. My fail. Analogies are teaching tools. I assumed the rape concept was something accessible to you due to your extended stint in Rikers.
 
Actually, you are a moron. You are not a climate scientist. Anyone who substitutes their uniformed opinion for the overwhelming consensus opinion of experts in diverse scientific disciplines which each coalesce towards the unified judgment that climate change is real, anthropogenic and deleterious, is a moron. This is not a subject matter susceptible to lay opinion. Prove your credentials or fall in line, rube.

Neither are you, yet you think that appealing to authority and declaring consensus is the end of the story. It's not and you're a fool for thinking so, but alas there are many like you.
 
I disagree with you on that, I don't think that's a concession statement, I think they're positioning themselves.

Ok fair semantic distinction. It's a de facto concession. Simply compare the substance to the statements a dozen or more years ago. Nary a word or stonewall while spending millions on think tanks to get out the denial message.
 
Neither are you, yet you think that appealing to authority and declaring consensus is the end of the story. It's not and you're a fool for thinking so, but alas there are many like you.

Your logic is quite simply fallacious. Stop making my point so forcefully. The only logical position of someone who, like me, is not an expert when the ken of the matter requires expertise is to defer. In this case I am only emboldened because this is not 5-4 scotus decision. 97 percent are in agreement. You and I are both ignorant. I am going with the 97, you the 3. Why?

I have no dog in this race. I would be MORE than pleased if 97 percent of relevant experts said its a fucking joke. Cool beans! yeah oil! I don't hate shit just to hate it.
 
"Donald Trump and the Triumph of Climate-Change Denial
The science of man-made global warming has only grown more conclusive. So why have Republicans become less convinced it’s real over the past decade and a half?


Lucas Jackson / Reuters
CLARE FORAN
DEC 25, 2016 POLITICS
Share Tweet
TEXT SIZE

We want to hear from you! Help shape our future by taking the 2017 Atlantic Audience Survey. Click here to get started.
Denial of the broad scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of global warming could become a guiding principle of Donald Trump’s presidential administration. Though it’s difficult to pin down exactly what Trump thinks about climate change, he has a well-established track record of skepticism and denial. He has called global warming a “hoax,” insisted while campaigning for the Republican nomination that he’s “not a big believer in man-made climate change,” and recently suggested that “nobody really knows” if climate change exists. Trump also plans to nominate Republicans to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department who have expressed skepticism toward the scientific agreement on human-caused global warming.

LATEST FROM POLITICS


A Reflection on Trump's Uncharted Presidency

Indeed, Trump’s election is a triumph of climate denial, and will elevate him to the top of a Republican Party where prominent elected officials have publicly rejected the climate consensus. It’s not that the presidential election was a referendum on global warming. Climate change barely came up during the presidential debates, and voters rated the environment as a far less pressing concern than issues like the economy, terrorism, and health care. But that relative lack of concern signals that voters have not prioritized action on climate change, if they want any action taken at all. Trump’s victory sends a message that failing to embrace climate science still isn’t disqualifying for a presidential candidate, even as scientists warn that the devastating consequences of global warming are under way and expected to intensify in the years ahead.

If Trump fails to take climate change seriously, the federal government may do little to address the threat of a warming planet in the next four years. A presidential administration hostile to climate science also threatens to deepen, or at the very least prolong, the skepticism that already exists in American political life. “If the Trump administration continues to push the false claim that global warming is a hoax, not happening, not human caused, or not a serious problem, I’d expect many conservative Republican voters to follow their lead,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of Yale University’s Program on Climate Change Communication.

A presidential administration hostile to climate science also threatens to deepen the skepticism that already exists in American political life.
The entrenchment of climate-science denial is one of the ways the United States appears to be exceptional relative to the rest of the world. A comparative 2015 study of nine conservative political parties in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain concluded that “the U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.” Meanwhile, Americans were least likely to agree that climate change is largely the result of human activity in a 2014 survey of 20 countries, including China, India, Australia, and Great Britain.

Scientific reality does not seem to have escaped the distorting influence of political polarization in the United States. A paper published in Environment earlier this year suggests that as the Tea Party pushed the Republican Party further to the political right, it helped solidify skepticism of man-made climate change within the GOP. That happened as the Tea Party incorporated “anti-environmentalism and climate-change denial into its agenda,” the authors write, and subsequently became part of a broader “denial countermovement” made up of fossil-fuel companies as well as conservative think tanks and media outlets.

As the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats has widened, so has the partisan divide over climate change. Scientific evidence that human activity is the leading cause of global warming has continued to accumulate in recent years, and the evidence for man-made climate change is now overwhelming. In spite of that, Republicans are slightly less convinced than they were a decade and a half ago that the Earth is getting warmer as a result of human activity. Democrats have moved in the opposite direction and become more likely to say that man-made climate change is real. This year, Gallup found that while 85 percent of Democrats believe human activity has lead to higher temperatures, only 38 percent of Republicans agree."

The Atlantic
 
Your logic is quite simply fallacious. Stop making my point so forcefully. The only logical position of someone who, like me, is not an expert when the ken of the matter requires expertise is to defer. In this case I am only emboldened because this is not 5-4 scotus decision. 97 percent are in agreement. You and I are both ignorant. I am going with the 97, you the 3. Why?

I have no dog in this race. I would be MORE than pleased if 97 percent of relevant experts said its a fucking joke. Cool beans! yeah oil! I don't hate shit just to hate it.

My logic is impeccable, I refer you to the late great Richard Feynman and his brilliant lecture on Cargo Cult Science.

 
My logic is impeccable, I refer you to the late great Richard Feynman and his brilliant lecture on Cargo Cult Science.


Funny you delegating your debate at this particular time, given my point and your response. You can write his thoughts out and spare me the video. What in particular does this dead guy want me to know germane to our discussion? I'm presently unable to do an audio. Gotta keep up appearances and all.

Ps my dad is a physicist. His PhD mentor won the Nobel prize. That no more makes me a physicist than feynman epistemologist.
 
Last edited:
Ok fair semantic distinction. It's a de facto concession. Simply compare the substance to the statements a dozen or more years ago. Nary a word or stonewall while spending millions on think tanks to get out the denial message.

It's not a concession period. They know the money these days is in going with the government viewpoint, that's why they released that statement. It had nothing to do with science.
 
Funny you delegating your debate at this particular time, given my point and your response. You can write his thoughts out and spare me the video. What in particular does this dead guy want me to know germane to our discussion? I'm presently unable to do an audio. Gotta keep up appearances and all.

Ps my dad is a physicist. His PhD mentor won the Nobel prize. That no more makes me a physicist than feynman epistemologist.

I have been down this road many times, I get extremely tired of people spouting the same old talking points. Feynman was an absolute genius and he was trying to tell people that belief in consensus is lazy and dishonest. A scientist should be sceptical always, if not, then you are no different to a religious believer.
 
LOL wasn't the overwhelming consensus that Hillary Clinton could not lose?

Try again as you and every one of your friends was completely WRONG

Next
 
LOL wasn't the overwhelming consensus that Hillary Clinton could not lose?

Try again as you and every one of your friends was completely WRONG

Next

Overwhelming consensus of social scientists using survey data that Hillary would win by 5 percent. Contradistinction hard scientists employing direct observation, longitudinal data etc that the earth climate is changing due to burning of fossil fuels. It's only funny that you can't draw distinctions that broad.
 
Obama promised to invest 5 billion US taxpayer dollars to 3rd world countries by way of green technologies. Can anyone guess who, or should I say which politicos, both domestic and foreign, have huge investments in green technologies?
 
Overwhelming consensus of social scientists using survey data that Hillary would win by 5 percent. Contradistinction hard scientists employing direct observation, longitudinal data etc that the earth climate is changing due to burning of fossil fuels. It's only funny that you can't draw distinctions that broad.

As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
 
I have been down this road many times, I get extremely tired of people spouting the same old talking points. Feynman was an absolute genius and he was trying to tell people that belief in consensus is lazy and dishonest. A scientist should be sceptical always, if not, then you are no different to a religious believer.

Your comparison between religious faith and faith in experts is inapt, both empirically and statistically. I'm tired of morons who equate them. If I'm a mechanic and I blindly follow a consensus of 52 mechanics in popular mechanics who believe the torque on a bolt should be x rather than 48 think it should be x-1 on my customer's Aston Martin db9 rather than employing my independent knowledge and experience, then I am lazy and dishonest. If I am the customer, I am neither being lazy nor dishonest to trust the weight of expertise (or that of my mechanic). In our particular case the consensus is overwhelming. In our case the science is far more complex than torque on a single object. Nobody can be an expert on everything, logically challenged faith your public intellectual hero's opinion notwithstanding. Assuming that lack of ability, faith in experts consensus is the logical course of action. Since you disagree, I know you are dishonest or stupid, as you put your faith in the heterodox position in all things that you do not know. That's dumb. Or do you assert you are capable of knowing all things and that others are too?
 
Last edited:
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

Sure, lies damn lies and statistics...clemons

Thing about an aphorism, it too is only partly true. It's also often a lie. You want to debate or impugn the veracity of stochastics, go right ahead, But a slogan or witticism of yet another smart guy ain't proof. Set forth your mathematical proof that the entire science of statistics is a fallacy. Start with logical premises and end it with QED and wrap a little red bow on it, I'll be waiting.

I'd like to add a point to take care that my position is not conflated with another. I am not saying there should not be questioning within the expert community (or from without) of science in any particular discipline, for that is the sine qua non of science. There is, however, such questioning ongoing all the time. But questioning an reexamination and retesting is still informing the reason of climate scientists that global climate change due to carbon forcing from fossil fuels is anthropogenic, deleterious and in short "real"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top