Climate policy continues to change

[Conager]

President Obama is not a scientist.

The idea that consensus means proof is not a scientific one.

Again, you should explain this to President Obama. Since he's a major decision maker it's kind of important that he understand if there is no consensus as to the amount of warming we can expect if any and what portion of that warming is attributable to man burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Conager]

As backhanded compliments go, that one is . . . odd. What's your beef with RatWiki? Sure they're biased, by their own admission, but they're biased in favor of rationality, facts and science, which even you must admit is entirely unobjectionable.



I do. I also understand it has a neutrality policy and every article has a talk page and all controversial articles are hammered out there. Wiki makes mistakes and often needs editing, but it represents an iterative process tending towards greater and greater accuracy. And, it acknowledges and addresses criticism of Wikipedia, especially with respect to the reliability of Wikipedia.





It's an aggregator of valid citations; that's what the footnotes are for.



Nothing of the kind; see above.



Spending a lot of time researching and debunking ULs is what makes them experts at it.

As RatWiki sez:



FactCheck on Snopes.

If you were actually using Wikipedia as if it were a research tool going to those actual annotations reading them to determine whether or not they do or do not support the point you're trying to advance and use that original Source material you might have a leg to stand on. Simply citing the Wikipedia article which is nothing but several people's opinions about what those citations do or do not show is not in and of itself a citation.

In court the words contained in a synopsis of a legal brief does not count as a citation.

Rational Wiki is for those individuals who take exception to the fact that Wikipedia is not already left leaning enough. Then using the word rational and declaring that there is all about facts doesn't make it so that's their opinion about their own veracity.

But I will play along. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that rational Wiki doesn in fact make an effort to strictly present issues from a fact-based perspective. The mere fact that rational Wiki exists is therefore evidence that Wikipedia is not fact-based.

 

[trysail]

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
​

-Robert A. Heinlein
"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Time Enough For Love
​

​

 

[water505]

The only thing you've offered here are facts and figures about people's opinions.

Let's see your facts about climate.

A few posts back I asked you a simple yes or no question, but instead of answering it you deflected by asking another question. Why? Because you knew if you answered it honestly you'd prove to everyone that you were full of shit. Again.

At least you're good at something. It sure isn't thinking.

 

[phrodeau]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Did I say scientists were saying it? Yes or no?

No, you didn't. You haven't presented any scientific evidence on the topic of climate change.

Now get your homework done or get another failing grade.

 

[phrodeau]

Again, you should explain this to President Obama. Since he's a major decision maker it's kind of important that he understand if there is no consensus as to the amount of warming we can expect if any and what portion of that warming is attributable to man burning of fossil fuels.

Why? He gets information directly from the best scientists in the world. Why should he care about what those less-qualified scientists have to say?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Small l is close to the dictionary definition. Capital L very similar but with the Wiki political definition.

liberal: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

Liberal: espousing a wide array of views , but generally supporting ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.

Also, being Canadian: Liberal refers mainly to the policies and ideas of the Liberal Party of Canada/Parti Libéral du Canada (member LI), the most frequent governing party of Canada for the last century and one of the largest liberal parties in the world. The Liberal Party of Canada has in the past generally supported a welfare state, and is regarded as a centre-left party.

Up here the two ruling parties are the Liberals and the Conservatives. No fucking around as to which way they lean. For many years the Conservatives were known as the Progressive Conservatives. A bit confusing to you Yanks I suppose.

When it comes to freedom of speech, individual freedom and free markets Yanks are far more Liberal than Canadians. When it comes to governance and law and order Canada is far more conservative than the US. Only with the passing of the Patriot Act did US law enforcement come close to the powers that Canadian police possess.

"Liberalism is the philosophy for our time, because it does not try to conserve every tradition of the past, because it does not apply to new problems the old doctrinaire solutions, because it is prepared to experiment and innovate and because it knows that the past is less important than the future." P.E.T.

If you guys had a proper UHC system you would be so far lefty Liberal of us as to be truly the USSA. Only on a few social issues such as capital punishment, abortion and drugs do you lean conservative compared to us. And pot is dragging you guys into hippy land. Be long time before we get recreational pot for sale up here. We won't toss you in jail for a joint. But be damn if we will sell it to you until the cops can test you for being under the influence.

So it all depends on your perspective. I'm sure there are liberal and conservative Muslims in Tehran.

This is the FDR reengineering of the term in both cases. It is not the meaning of the word.

Here is but one rebuttal:

http://factmyth.com/factoids/americas-founding-fathers-were-liberals/

That is why I always say classical Liberalism. Because the Socialists first adopted the term 'Progressive' when Americans rejected it and then when they figured out that Progressive meant Socialism, then FDR called it Liberalism and then labeled actual liberals as conservatives.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In America, "progressive" is a name for something well to the left of liberal and well to the right of socialist -- what in Europe would be called a social democrat.

Progressive is a label adopted when the Fabian Socialists realized that Americans would not accept that brand.

In Europe it was called Communist, Socialist, Fascist and Fabian.

If you need, or want links/cites, I will provide them tomorrow, I'm getting ready for bed now...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If you were actually using Wikipedia as if it were a research tool going to those actual annotations reading them to determine whether or not they do or do not support the point you're trying to advance and use that original Source material you might have a leg to stand on. Simply citing the Wikipedia article which is nothing but several people's opinions about what those citations do or do not show is not in and of itself a citation.

I'm pretty sure you've never walked into court but if you did you would find that using the words contained in a synopsis of a legal brief does not count as a citation.

Rational Wiki is for those individuals who take exception to the fact that Wikipedia is not already left leaning enough. Then using the word rational and declaring that there is all about facts doesn't make it so that's their opinion about their own veracity.

But I will play along. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that rational Wiki doesn in fact make an effort to strictly present issues from a fact-based perspective. The mere fact that rational Wiki exists is therefore evidence that Wikipedia is not fact-based.

This is hilarious...



As you are pointing out, if I can find it on the web, then it is true.

The gate-keepers have no vested interest in the outcomes of the information they provide. If you see it, it has to be true! It's consensus....

 

[Conager]

Why? He gets information directly from the best scientists in the world. Why should he care about what those less-qualified scientists have to say?

Oh really?

Cite?

Which of these "best scientists" did he consult prior to any of the many times he repeated the widely discredited "consensus" meme?

Do you have times and places that these consultations too place? Who was in attendence? Meeting minutes?

Which ones did he consult before he then changed his 97% of scientists agree to 99.5%?

. . .because he sure sounds like he's talking out of his ass the way you do on the subject of climate "science."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It

just​

keeps​

getting​

FUNNIER!​

 

[water505]

These motherfuckers are downright dangerous. How do they manage to make it through each day? Maybe they're in some type of facility.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh really?

Cite?

Which of these "best scientists" did he consult prior to any of the many times he repeated the widely discredited "consensus" meme?

Do you have times and places that these consultations too place? Who was in attendence? Meeting minutes?

Which ones did he consult before he then changed his 97% of scientists agree to 99.5%?

. . .because he sure sounds like he's talking out of his ass the way you do on the subject of climate "science."

Here you go.

http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports

Now piss off.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It will be even more fun when NASA's climate research is defunded. That way there can literally be no facts and the dopes will be able giggle about it right up to the moment when we all choke on the pollution.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/china-smog-4-1a.gif

 

[OldJourno]

Why? He gets information directly from the best scientists in the world. Why should he care about what those less-qualified scientists have to say?

Take comfort in your trust in big government.

 

[phrodeau]

Take comfort in your trust in big government.

How else could we Make America Great Again?

 

[OldJourno]

It will be even more fun when NASA's climate research is defunded. That way there can literally be no facts and the dopes will be able giggle about it right up to the moment when we all choke on the pollution.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/china-smog-4-1a.gif

Choke on pollution? Are you kidding?
By any measure, our "pollution" is down dramatically since the 1960s. And a whole lot of us have never lived with any real level of pollution - unless we were going to the city.
Defunding NASA's climate research won't make pollution worse. Besides, plenty of other organizations study climate. They need solid information, not the tripe dished out by NASA.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If the number is not 97% of climate scientists publishing, it would help clear things up if someone could give us a cite to what the real percentage is.

 

[Conager]

If the number is not 97% of climate scientists publishing, it would help clear things up if someone could give us a cite to what the real percentage is.

There isn't any such number because no one bothered to ask the scientists included in the study anything much less a few basic questions. Which makes sense because most of you that belong to the religion of Gaia don't even know what questions to ask.

Such as, if man were not on the planet, would it be in the midst of a warming or cooling trend and why?

 

[Conager]

.....

 

[about_average]

"97% of scientists" ≠ "97% of publishing climatologists"

There isn't any such number because no one bothered to ask the scientists included in the study anything much less a few basic questions. Which makes sense because most of you that belong to the religion of Gaia don't even know what questions to ask.

Such as, if man were not on the planet, would it be in the midst of a warming or cooling trend and why?

Of course climatologists would never consider that question when doing their studies. Only you could think of such a critical question.

 

[Conager]

"97% of scientists" ≠ "97% of publishing climatologists"

Of course climatologists would never consider that question when doing their studies. Only you would think of such a critical question.

Even with that parse, it is not true. Although anyone calling themselves a climatologist is a self-selecting population that primarily comes from the Church of Global Warming.

Be interesting to see what those same scientists call themselves when they're seeking lucrative grant money under a trump presidency.

 

[water505]

It will be even more fun when NASA's climate research is defunded. That way there can literally be no facts and the dopes will be able giggle about it right up to the moment when we all choke on the pollution.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/china-smog-4-1a.gif

Thank you Chicken Little.

 

[water505]

Be interesting to see what those same scientists call themselves when they're seeking lucrative grant money under a trump presidency.

Deniers.

 

[about_average]

Even with that parse, it is not true. Although anyone calling themselves a climatologist is a self-selecting population that primarily comes from the Church of Global Warming.

Which parse would that be?
To not offend your sensibilities I included your full post, I know how sensitive you are about that.

Or are you talking about the "97% of scientists" quote?
I love how you try to delegitimize by throwing out distractions.
First you try to delegitimize the study because you're not happy they didn't ask a question that would be a given consideration for a climatologist. Then you try to delegitimize climatologists by pretending there is no such field and then you try to delegitimize my comment by claiming a direct quote, that the deniers continue to use, is a "parse".
If you knew what the word "parse" actually means you'd realize the only way for a direct quote to not be a parse would be to include every post by everyone who used the term. That would make this post several pages long.
Now, if you'd actually bothered to pay attention you'd know my quote was was accurate.

As for your "it's not true" statement, provide some evidence it's not true.
You know, instead of throwing out chaff try to back up your claim. At least try to. So far all you've done is try to distract from your claims.