Latest on Climate Change

Corazón said:
Man you truly are an incredibly ignorant cunt!





http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-pure-chemistry-definition-examples.html

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right, so show me your degree with the designation of pure chemistry on the face of it, and cum laude as a bonus.

You can't, you won't. It just says "chemistry" if you have it.


https://www.google.com/search?q=deg...w=1709&bih=843&dpr=1.13#imgrc=PPjOnhfV0ws3uM:

My three degrees do not say applied economics, or applied international relations or applied juris doctor. Or pure law.

You are just being a pompous asshole, as charged and convicted.

Oh, and let me know how you morphed it into climate science fraud.
 
crowonapost said:
Thank you for sharing your lank of attention to detail. It helps clarify all the other comments.
Click to expand...
I am sure that the terroir needed for growing Périgord truffles is far more complex than is being made out by that article. Wales isn't even noted for being one of the warmer parts of the UK anyway!



Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
Your "lank of attention" (sic) is duly noted.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your ignorance in rules of citation - (sic) for [sic] is duly laughed at, school marmaduke.

Use brackets, not parens, and put in italics next time you wish to mock a typographical error!
 
Micawber said:
Cornholio sure is proud of his bachelor's degree.
Click to expand...

lol, 'Lack' correct. Was busy in the office, I type fast & get distracted by other things. Thank you for insulting me and avoinding the fact that you did not read the article.

I left a quick misspelling of a word for you, so you could feel vindicated.

You go girl!

(BTW was referencing what's his face 'Cornholio' while responding to you. )
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
I am sure that the terroir needed for growing Périgord truffles is far more complex than is being made out by that article. Wales isn't even noted for being one of the warmer parts of the UK anyway!



Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why thank you for reinforcing the point of the article! You are so helpful.
 
I go to Wales every now and again, and if it is warming then I must have missed it! It always seem to be pissing down, windy and/or cold.
 
Scott Adams contradicted himself somewhat. On television regarding Trumps victory yesterday he attributed it to Trumps masterful power of persuasion using name calling and labels. His emphasis here leans on societal coercion on scientists.

But yes, I agree with the dynamics he mentions which are exactly as I have repeatedly recounted here. In short, it is stupid to do what Corazon does here. Totally stupid. Thanks Scott!
 
Micawber said:
Scott Adams contradicted himself somewhat. On television regarding Trumps victory yesterday he attributed it to Trumps masterful power of persuasion using name calling and labels. His emphasis here leans on societal coercion on scientists.

But yes, I agree with the dynamics he mentions which are exactly as I have repeatedly recounted here. In short, it is stupid to do what Corazon does here. Totally stupid. Thanks Scott!
Click to expand...

You only agree with the parts you think reinforce your argument. In fact you probably only read the first two or three paragraphs. He pointed out that it is probably career suicide to go against the mainstream and in fact many more scientists are sceptical of AGW but are afraid to speak publically. It must be even worse if you are a government scientist, are you going to bite the hand that feeds you?

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims. You didn’t do the data collection or the experiments yourself. You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face it – you aren’t good at that. So what do you do?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. And the majority says climate science is real and we need to do something about it. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug. Ask the experts who used to say sexual orientation is just a choice. Ask the experts who said alcoholism is a moral failure and not a matter of genetics.

There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong. Let’s dig into that question.

It seems to me that a majority of experts*could*be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

1. A theory has been*“adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to*“tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the*“wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.*

5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

One of the things that always fascinated me about jury trials is that attorneys from both sides can sound so convincing even though the evidence points in only one direction. A defendant is either guilty or innocent, but good lawyers can make you see it either way. Climate science is similar. I’ve seen airtight arguments that say climate science is solid and true, and I’ve seen equally credible-looking arguments that say it is bunk. From my non-scientist perspective, I can’t tell the difference. Both sides look convincing to me.

As I have described in this blog before, I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years. That gives me a bit of context that is different from the norm. In my experience, and based on my training, it is normal and routine for the*“majority of experts” to be completely wrong about important stuff. But in the two-dimensional world where persuasion isn’t much of a thing, it probably looks to most of you that experts are usually right, especially when they are overwhelmingly on the same side and there is a mountain of confirming evidence.

We like to think we arrived at our decisions about climate science by using our common sense and good judgement to evaluate the credibility of experts. Some of you think you have superior sources of information as well. But both sides are wrong. No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using to arrive at your decision:

1. Fear

2. Unwarranted trust in experts

3. Pattern recognition

On the question of fear, if you believe that experts are good at predicting future doom, you are probably scared to death by climate change. But in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix. We didn’t run out of food because of population growth. We didn’t run out of oil as predicted. We didn’t have a problem with the Year 2000 bug, and so on. I refer to this phenomenon as the*Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters. When we see a disaster coming – as we do with climate science – we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom. In the case of climate change danger, there are a number of technologies under development that can directly scrub the atmosphere if needed.

On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.

And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.

While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.

To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to*“tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.

To strengthen my point today, and in celebration of my reopening of the blog commenting section, please provide your links to pro and con arguments about climate science. This might be the only place in the world you will see links to both sides. If you want to be amazed, see how persuasive*BOTH*sides of this debate are.

As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.

If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.
Click to expand...

–





Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
You only agree with the parts you think reinforce your argument. In fact you probably only read the first two or three paragraphs. He pointed out that it is probably career suicide to go against the mainstream
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why do you think I wrote "societal coercion on scientists?" Break it down slowly. Compare the bold content. I know you can you it. You accuse me of not reading your copied tome and yet you clearly didn't read one or two sentences before you dedicated your post to an accusation
that is negated if only YOU read mine. Sometimes I'm convinced I'm the only one here at all.
 
Micawber said:
Why do you think I wrote "societal coercion on scientists?" Break it down slowly. Compare the bold content. I know you can you it. You accuse me of not reading your copied tome and yet you clearly didn't read one or two sentences before you dedicated your post to an accusation
that is negated if only YOU read mine. Sometimes I'm convinced I'm the only one here at all.
Click to expand...
I don't know why I bother with such a patronising cunt, so I won't!

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top