A Climate (Alarmist) Must Read

[RNG]

After all te whining and hand wringing over Trump playing golf we now have this little vacation the Dems are slathering on themselves during the recess. To Madrid no less! If the world is heating up so drastically why not Nome or Murmansk where the palm should be sprouting soon. 15 of the loony bins finest (5 from Calif) and their unknown number of klingons spewing tons of carbon into the stratosphere to get to a pointless gathering of irrelevant people. Oh well, they'll at least get a few day around the pool on the taxpayers dime.

Pelosi Flying out with Democrats to U.N. Climate Meeting in Spain

Nancy Pelosi will fly out Sunday with a delegation of congressional Democrats heading to the COP25 climate conference in Madrid.

www.breitbart.com

As Trump and a very few of his buddies fly around in a fucking 747?

 

[Clara007]

The president's motto:
if you don't agree with climate change---bury the report.

Donald Trump buried a climate change report because 'I don't believe it'

President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed a study produced by his own administration, involving 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.

www.cnn.com

 

[baloney_detector]

I agree, but that's not what the article is really about. It's the secondary hyperbole around the science that is being (IMO) rightly criticized. If the case for the more severe predictions of climate change effect is that strong then no one should have to lie about it -- and yet so many in the media and Washington do.

Yeah, I think the actual science could-and should-speak for itself, so to speak.

Heck, I've even noticed some climate scientists, who contribute on web blogs, getting a bit frustrated that the words being chosen to use by some commentators, such as politicians, aren't entirely accurate and appear to be a bit counter-productive in effect.

 

[Rescue Basket]

Yeah, I think the actual science could-and should-speak for itself, so to speak.

Heck, I've even noticed some climate scientists, who contribute on web blogs, getting a bit frustrated that the words being chosen to use by some commentators, such as politicians, aren't entirely accurate and appear to be a bit counter-productive in effect.

Climate deniers will seize upon any and all opportunities to discredit the peer reviewed consensus. In this case, I'd call their logical fallacy guilt by association.

 

[baloney_detector]

Deniers will seize any and all opportunities to discredit the peer reviewed consensus. In this case, I'd call their logical fallacy guilty by association.

True.

But, in my opinion, it doesn't really help when it isn't climate scientists who are doing most the public speaking and relaying exactly what the actual scientific research says, in significant detail.

Sure, some are speaking...but they seem to be drowned out by a lot of noise it seems so that those fine details cannot be heard.

And the media, in general, at times doesn't help, particularly if they mainly focus on what more sensationalistic non-scientists say, such as some politicians.

 

[Rescue Basket]

True.

But, in my opinion, it doesn't really help when it isn't climate scientists who are doing most the public speaking and relaying exactly what the actual scientific research says, in significant detail.

Sure, some are speaking...but they seem to be drowned out by a lot of noise it seems so that those fine details cannot be heard.

And the media, in general, at times doesn't help, particularly if they mainly focus on what more sensationalistic non-scientists say, such as some politicians.

Yep...in the era of Trump, anyone to the left of Mike Pence has to choose their words very carefully or precisely and fortify their arguments with volumes of empirical evidence while the RW is held to the standard of 4th graders.

 

[baloney_detector]

Yep...in the era of Trump, anyone to the left of Mike Pence has to choose their words very carefully or precisely and fortify their arguments with volumes of empirical evidence while the RW is held to the standard of 4th graders.

Well, to borrow from Stan Laurel....

"It sure does appear that way, Ollie. It sure does!"

 

[Clara007]

Yep...in the era of Trump, anyone to the left of Mike Pence has to choose their words very carefully or precisely and fortify their arguments with volumes of empirical evidence while the RW is held to the standard of 4th graders.

That's an insult to 4th graders!
One thing we know for sure. 99% of the 4th graders (9 yr olds) in this country (and probably globally) have something that 99% of the Republican Party can't even fathom. It's called ETHICS.
Ask any 9 yr old about RIGHT and WRONG--TRUTH and LIES--GOOD and BAD.....and they won't falter for a second. They will unequivocally state--loud and proud--the very essence of axiology.

 

[Rescue Basket]

That's an insult to 4th graders!
One thing we know for sure. 99% of the 4th graders (9 yr olds) in this country (and probably globally) have something that 99% of the Republican Party can't even fathom. It's called ETHICS.
Ask any 9 yr old about RIGHT and WRONG--TRUTH and LIES--GOOD and BAD.....and they won't falter for a second. They will unequivocally state--loud and proud--the very essence of axiology.

There I go again -- giving the benefit of the doubt to those who have done nothing here to earn it, but defend the indefensible.

 

[RNG]

True.

But, in my opinion, it doesn't really help when it isn't climate scientists who are doing most the public speaking and relaying exactly what the actual scientific research says, in significant detail.

Sure, some are speaking...but they seem to be drowned out by a lot of noise it seems so that those fine details cannot be heard.

And the media, in general, at times doesn't help, particularly if they mainly focus on what more sensationalistic non-scientists say, such as some politicians.

I am forced to pull out my soapbox again and repeat my favorite climate related rant.

Much if not most of the somewhat valid criticism of climate science is caused, not by climate scientists but by reporters. People with no real knowledge but I good English skills are being sent to interview climate scientists or read reports from them. At least I assume that's the reason.

And of course they want to get a lot of attention since that's what results in their getting raises and promotions. So they cherry pick the most explosive aspects of them, and often totally misunderstand what is being said. And if a model predicts a bell shaped probability of 5 with the two standard deviation range being 2 to 8, they will only report the 8.

So 8 doesn't happen, 5 does and the deniers claim FAKE NEWS, WRONG AGAIN, CORRUPTION. None of which are of course correct.

So thank you for your post.