http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/donald-trump-reminiscent-of-stalin-says-chief-scientist-alan-finkel-as-science-literally-under-attack/ar-AAmEdEf?ocid=spartandhp

Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has compared US President Donald Trump's move to censor environmental data with former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's control of science in the USSR.

Speaking at a Chief Scientists' roundtable discussion at the Australian National University on Monday, Dr Finkel made his comments saying he was "going off topic" as "science is literally under attack".

Dr Finkel said: "The Trump administration has mandated that scientific data published by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] must undergo review by political appointees before they can be published."

In the first week of his presidency Mr Trump's administration informed the EPA it could not send out press releases and no blog messages could be published. The EPA was also told "no new content can be placed on any website".

The Chief Scientist told an audience at the ANU's Crawford School of Public Policy that this political control was comparable to Stalin's promotion of Trofim Lysenko's ideas on genetics and evolution in the USSR from the 1920s.

Dr Finkel said: "It is reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political officers in the old Soviet Union. Every military commander there had a political officer second-guessing his decisions.

"Soviet agricultural science was held back for decades because of the ideology of Trofim Lysenko. Stalin loved Lysenko's conflation of science and Soviet philosophy and used his limitless power to ensure that Lysenko's unscientific ideas prevailed."

Dr Finkel said: "While Western scientists embraced evolution and genetics, Russian scientists who thought the same were sent to the gulag. Western crops flourished. Russian crops failed."

The Chief Scientist said there was no place for such political control of science. "Frank and fearless advice - no matter the views of the political commissars at the EPA," he said.

Dr Finkel said that he valued his independence and was grateful that no Australian prime minister or minister had ever told him what to say.

His comments came at the end of a short speech that focused on how he had been managing the review of the National Electricity Market.

He pointed out that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg could have asked an economist to chair the review, but had asked him.

He came to the role independently, apart from his love of electrons.

Dr Finkel said that he had been phoned at 11.40pm on October 6, 2016, after he'd had "one or two whiskys" when Mr Frydenberg requested he chair the review.

"But, but, but ... " was his first reaction, but a "tired" minister had already hung up. He agreed to take on the task the next morning.
Dr Finkel said there was urgent need to ensure science was at the centre of policy making.

He said that in government there were only 22 federal MPs with a background in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM); there is only one of 18 federal departmental heads; no COAG energy ministers; and no premiers.

Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler?

Who will he be tomorrow?  Pinochet?  Ceaucescu?

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  Pinochet?  Ceaucescu?

why? you don' think someones actions can be compared to multiple people? :D :D

Yep. Look up the science on the EPA's PM2.5 and how they would differentiate between local and interstate emissions. They wanted to fine interstate polluters. ;)

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  Pinochet?  Ceaucescu?

Nero.

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?

An alleged child rapist who admits to sexually assaulting women.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 6:52pm: Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  An alleged child rapist who admits to sexually assaulting women.

Exactly, tomorrow he might be Bill Clinton. They're just silly names from silly people.

All I hear is the sweet sweet sound of swamps draining.

Corrupt fraudsters being exposed and their much hyped climate science being shown the door. Good news all round.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 8:35pm:

... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 6:52pm: Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  Pinochet?  Ceaucescu? Nero.

He was Nero yesterday, and I'm pretty sure you mentioned caligula too. 

Is there any leader, past or present you couldn't compare him to? 

Not exactly a leader, but I've always compared him to Nemesis - the bringer of retribution against those who have committed grave hubris.  Is that why he worries you?

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 8:37pm: ... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 6:52pm: Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  An alleged child rapist who admits to sexually assaulting women. Exactly, tomorrow he might be Bill Clinton. They're just silly names from silly people.

Ah.

Silly people.

Trump is the one who says he sexually assaults women so, yes, I agree that he's a silly person.

However, I wouldn't necessarily call women/children who say they've been raped 'silly people'.

If one of your daughters was raped I'm not sure you would call her a 'silly person' for making an allegation against her attacker.

Or, would you?

Rider wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:

All I hear is the sweet sweet sound of swamps draining. Corrupt fraudsters being exposed and their much hyped climate science being shown the door. Good news all round.

LOL, SO HOW DOES THE INTERNET WORK?

HOW DOES YOUR GAY MOBILE PHONE WORK?

HEY, HOW DOES YOUR OLD HOME PHONE WORK?

HOW DO YOU EVEN GET TO WORK?

- it's called method buddy and that is all science is: documented method!

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 9:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 8:37pm: ... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 6:52pm: Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  An alleged child rapist who admits to sexually assaulting women. Exactly, tomorrow he might be Bill Clinton. They're just silly names from silly people. Ah. Silly people. Trump is the one who says he sexually assaults women so, yes, I agree that he's a silly person. However, I wouldn't necessarily call women/children who say they've been raped 'silly people'. If one of your daughters was raped I'm not sure you would call her a 'silly person' for making an allegation against her attacker. Or, would you?

it's well known that not all reported rape is actualy rape.... don't know too many doctors do you buddy  ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 9:16pm: ... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 9:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 8:37pm: ... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 6:52pm: Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  An alleged child rapist who admits to sexually assaulting women. Exactly, tomorrow he might be Bill Clinton. They're just silly names from silly people. Ah. Silly people. Trump is the one who says he sexually assaults women so, yes, I agree that he's a silly person. However, I wouldn't necessarily call women/children who say they've been raped 'silly people'. If one of your daughters was raped I'm not sure you would call her a 'silly person' for making an allegation against her attacker. Or, would you? it's well known that not all reported rape is actualy rape.... don't know too many doctors do you buddy  ;)

If your daughter/sister/mother told you she had been raped, would you call her a silly person?

Don't be silly gweg.

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Don't be silly gweg.

No answer (and no surprise).

You're being silly gweg, I said stop it.

This is your last warning.

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

You're being silly gweg, I said stop it. This is your last warning.

Child rape and sexual assault is okay, as long as it's not in your backyard.

We get it, Honky.

We get it.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3orieT4J48aMTwxYJi/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/RCk0yprDHSjhS/giphy.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

... wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 9:28pm: You're being silly gweg, I said stop it. This is your last warning. Child rape and sexual assault is okay, as long as it's not in your backyard. We get it, Honky. We get it.

Or in Victoria Park.

miam

miam

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 9:46pm:

miam

Once again Trump is right!

Science needs a shake up - in fact what we have now is politicized science. Current ideas are held more tightly than religious ones. Dogma!

Scientific research is funded by vested interests for the benefit of same. Discovered outside the current paradigm are ignored or suppressed. Math has taken precedence to observation. True science has not advanced in the last 50 years - physics is more like a 150 years.

"Science advances at the rate of one scientists funeral at a time".

Richdude wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:43am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 8th, 2017 at 9:46pm: miam Once again Trump is right! Science needs a shake up - in fact what we have now is politicized science. Current ideas are held more tightly than religious ones. Dogma! Scientific research is funded by vested interests for the benefit of same. Discovered outside the current paradigm are ignored or suppressed. Math has taken precedence to observation. True science has not advanced in the last 50 years - physics is more like a 150 years. "Science advances at the rate of one scientists funeral at a time".

Out of curiosity what industry are you employed in?

psychology is a soft science.
Trump is masterful at it.
So masterful that he has become the most powerful man in the world off of his posts on Twitter.

sexual attraction would also have a scientific component.
the mainstream media is mainly made up of beta males who continually qualify themselves to women and exhibit these low status behaviours.
Trump understands (and this is a scientific understanding) that women can be instantly turned on when the alpha male comes.
when trump "goes physical' with a woman as an 'open", this is not an assault. to the beta male brain , it seems an assault, because Trump is doing something the beta male couldnt do. if a beta male tried it the cops would be called. But the cops were never called on Trump because it was consensual. i would imagine as trump goes in , he is looking very closely at the pupils to see if the big bambi eyes of attraction are forming.
women like this sort of action from an alpha male but will not tolerate it from a beta male.
if we had more alphas in the media , they would understand.

Back to the discussion about science.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:25am:

Trump understands (and this is a scientific understanding) that women can be instantly turned on when the alpha male comes.

Don't you reckon all the alphabet men are aiming to turn women on before they come?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:31am:

Back to the discussion about science.

Science is the putting up of a hypothesis and the testing of this hypothesis in the field to see if the results are repeatable.

i can assure you that a male exhibiting alpha male behaviours and going physical with random women (and calibrating if no attraction is seen on the approach), will have "results" which scientically prove that a large percentage of women are compliant with this behaviour and exhibit neurophysiological evidence of this attraction.

to say this is an assault is to deny scientific evidence .
it is being untruthful and seeing only what you want to see, not what is actually happening (the basis of science)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:41am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 8:31am: Back to the discussion about science. Science is the putting up of a hypothesis and the testing of this hypothesis in the field to see if the results are repeatable. i can assure you that a male exhibiting alpha male behaviours and going physical with random women (and calibrating if no attraction is seen on the approach), will have "results" which scientically prove that a large percentage of women are compliant with this behaviour and exhibit neurophysiological evidence of this attraction. to say this is an assault is to deny scientific evidence . it is being untruthful and seeing only what you want to see, not what is actually happening (the basis of science)

So publish them.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:38am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 8:25am: Trump understands (and this is a scientific understanding) that women can be instantly turned on when the alpha male comes. Don't you reckon all the alphabet men are aiming to turn women on before they come?

;D ;D ;D

Please! Ozpol is a Family Show.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:46am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 8:38am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 8:25am: Trump understands (and this is a scientific understanding) that women can be instantly turned on when the alpha male comes. Don't you reckon all the alphabet men are aiming to turn women on before they come? ;D ;D ;D Please! Ozpol is a Family Show.

True... But I still think its important (for all the families who read our posts daily huddled together with their device like a Roosevelt family around the wireless) to dispel the image of Alpha Arthur wanking off (or ejaculating from a scientific understanding) over the Beta Bess...

At the very least the Greek alphabet needs to be extricated from these kinds of disturbing carnal references... After all, isn't it bad enough that taking it up the Khyber is also known as doing it Greek style?

Well, isn't it?

.

North, dont get caught up in this alpha and beta thing.
But recognise that men are attracted by looks and this can be instantaneous and that women are attracted by behaviour and this can be instantaneous.

i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. this is because most guys have brought into the group think that being tall and dark and handsome and having a nice watch is really important...it isnt.
it is the behaviour that is important.

cocky confident behaviour is very attractive to women.

they may say they want a gentleman...yes they do, to "provide' for them.

but they (not all but a lot) will become instantaneously aroused by some cocky confident guy who just acts entitled.

you know how if a woman looks a certain way, she just looks sexy.
if a man ACTS a certain way, it has the same effect.
and Trump does act that way, he justs acts indifferent, entitled and like he couldnt give a sh*t. and women WANT the validation from the guy who doesnt give a sh*t. they dont want the validation from the gentleman, they already know he wants her. hot women get hit up all day by "nice guys", they are totally numb to it. But when they get hit up by some guy who has those icey and indifferent behaviours...now they suddenly want what they dont have.
its just human nature.

i better search for a journal article for bojack...from the journal of "what works in the field" perhaps

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:40am:

i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl.

It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault.

Something you continually defend, for some reason.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault.

http://www.curvemag.com/8vgCEM5(1).gif


Quote:

And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:56am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:51am: It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault. http://www.curvemag.com/8vgCEM5(1).gif Quote: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

https://m.popkey.co/f62efd/WW7lq.gif


Sex offenders always say their victims were willing participants.

So do people who have sexual contact with willing participants.

You claim to have had sex before - was it with a willing participant?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:07am:

Maybe ...

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/71/717a1d716d8adc1bca7960adaba06d655a1ec50d238265d60a4d9cbf05e713d0.jpg

Tell me what else sex offenders always do.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:13am:

Tell me what else sex offenders always do.

Let's cut out the middle man.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contact

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:40am:

i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl.

Ah yes...

Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street...

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:40am: i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault. Something you continually defend, for some reason.

1 The orange hair is "peacocking". this is very attractive to women (when done from a couldnt care less attitude).
it says "i am such a boss in this environment. i am so high status that no one will mess with me".

its like when Leo di Caprio wears a t shirt to an exclusive club. if a beta male did it, the girls would see it as low status. when leo does it , it says "i am so high status that i can get away with this".

So trumps hair does actually add to his attraction.

2  arrogant...if you think all women are repulsed by arrogance , you are deluded.

3  douche bag...some of the biggest douche bags get the most chicks. a lot of women dont want a guy who is nice and suppliactes to them because they know that guy would get clingy and needy after sex. they will actively seek out the douche bag for that reason . plenty of drunk bar tenders can attest to this.

any thing else i can help you with?

your frame of constantly being repulsed by these so called assaults comes from the modern medias love of the "white knight"...the guy who opportunisticly tries to get in with women by sh*t talking other guys behaviour.

its a strategy that is understandable...unfortunately it doesnt work,   white knight a woman and you are instantaneously friend zoned for life

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:24am:

any thing else i can help you with?

You could explain why you condone sexual assault.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:27am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 10:24am: any thing else i can help you with? You could explain why you condone sexual assault.

I condone studying what works and what doesnt work in the real social dynamic of interacting with women.
Do so and you will discover that most beta male behaviour and most gentlemanly behaviour is creepy to women.
they wont admit that, but if you study real social dynmaics in the real world (ie, if you go out and interact with women), you will find that most of the mainstream advice to men on how to behave is completely wrong and you will have to rewrite the rule book.

essentially Trump may well be operating from a set of beliefs and behaviours which are more honest then the creepy and manipulative set of beliefs and behaviours that most men operate from.

Again, peer-reviewed...and go.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:40am:

essentially Trump may well be operating from a set of beliefs and behaviours which are more honest then the creepy and manipulative set of beliefs and behaviours that most men operate from.

He believes he has the right to sexually assault women.

Why do you condone this?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:16am:

Out of curiosity what industry are you employed in?

One that clearly doesn't require even the slightest understanding of how science works or the scientific process.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:56am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:51am: It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault. Quote: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

I can't believe people are still trying to defend that...

Trump without consent abused these women but because of his position of power over them they feel they cannot speak out, therefore consent?

Really!?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 8:31am:

Back to the discussion about science.

You mean like the recently thoroughly debunked Karl et al "Pausebuster" paper? Where they used a new experimental statistical model that turns out is no good. One that had never been approved for use.

They are having to redesign it and it is still not fit for purpose.

That kind of science?

"There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics."

Sorry Sad kangaroo but you are still stuck in mainstream thinking and thats just not reality.

women will ask to be bitten on the neck
women will ask to be spanked
women may even asked to be choked
women will ask to have their hair pulled.

This is clearly assault but they will ask for it and they will get turned on by it.

the mainstream cant handle this truth and they try to cover it up with their formulaic romantic comedies where some beta male gets the chick by just being really really nice.
the mainstream probably cant explain the phenomenom that was 50 shades of grey.

Fifty Shades of Grey is a contemporary sensation novel. And, as such, it can be likened to the sensation novels of the past, even though I cringe to make this comparison with the great classics, like  D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley's Lover, Gustav Flaubert's Madame Bovary and Nathanial Hawthorne’s Scarlett Letter of the day. And, just like Hester Prinn, Lady Chatterley and Emma Bovary, Ana Steele is seeking unbridled self-expression of body, heart, and mind through powerful men.



these are very complex issues .

you cant know whats going on in a womans head.
until you understand this, you have no idea

SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 11:17am:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:51am: It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault. Quote: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. I can't believe people are still trying to defend that... Trump without consent abused these women but because of his position of power over them they feel they cannot speak out, therefore consent? Really!?

Disturbing, isn't it?

The lengths these rightards will go to in order to defend sexual assault.

SadKangaroo wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 11:17am:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:51am: It pisses them off because, in the case of this orange, arrogant douche-bag, it's non-consensual sexual assault. Quote: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. I can't believe people are still trying to defend that... Trump without consent abused these women but because of his position of power over them they feel they cannot speak out, therefore consent? Really!?

No, not really.

The true chain of "logic" at play here is:

I dont like Trump

Therefore

I will accept any accusation levelled at him.

It is in keeping with findings within neuroscience that the emotional brain takes a position then the logical brain attempts to justify it.  Jonathon haidt uses the metaphor "elephant and rider" the elephant is so powerful that ultimately  its gonna do what the hell it wants, but the rider can attempt to guide it.

... wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

Stalin?  Wasnt he supposed to be Hitler? Who will he be tomorrow?  Pinochet?  Ceaucescu?

a variety of dictatorial comparisons is hardly praise

Oh it wasnt meant to be praise?

Im shocked - SHOCKED - to discover that media hit pieces are not meant to praise him. 

Thank you so much for pointing that out.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:04pm:

The true chain of "logic" at play here is: I dont like Trump Therefore I will accept any accusation levelled at him.

The true chain of "logic" at play here is:

I like Trump

Therefore

I will ignore any accusation levelled at him.

That will often be the case.

So never trumpers have an emotional hissyfit against him, leading to his supporters emotionally defending him. 

An impasse.  How does this get resolved? .

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:30pm:

That will often be the case. So never trumpers have an emotional hissyfit against him, leading to his supporters emotionally defending him.  An impasse.  How does this get resolved? .

Remove the source of disagreement.

Good idea - but an attempt at curtailing the impact of corporate media will be stubbornly resisted by their pet zombies, so we're back at square one.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:19am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:40am: i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. Ah yes... Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street...

Footy heroes?

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:44pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 10:19am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:40am: i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. Ah yes... Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street... Footy heroes?

Joe Jackson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzKSFbsh2Y

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:44pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 10:19am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:40am: i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. Ah yes... Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street... Footy heroes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzKSFbsh2Y

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 11:34am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 8:31am: Back to the discussion about science. You mean like the recently thoroughly debunked Karl et al "Pausebuster" paper? Where they used a new experimental statistical model that turns out is no good. One that had never been approved for use. They are having to redesign it and it is still not fit for purpose. That kind of science? "There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics."

Not sure how when every right wing web site says its debunked, that it means its debunked. If the model is flawed, surely thats for a statistician to say isn't it?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:30pm:

That will often be the case. So never trumpers have an emotional hissyfit against him, leading to his supporters emotionally defending him.  An impasse.  How does this get resolved? .

We drop alternate facts and concentrate on facts. When Trump tells the truth we acknowledge it. When he lies, we acknowledge that.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:40am:

North, dont get caught up in this alpha and beta thing. But recognise that men are attracted by looks and this can be instantaneous and that women are attracted by behaviour and this can be instantaneous. i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. this is because most guys have brought into the group think that being tall and dark and handsome and having a nice watch is really important...it isnt. it is the behaviour that is important. cocky confident behaviour is very attractive to women. they may say they want a gentleman...yes they do, to "provide' for them. but they (not all but a lot) will become instantaneously aroused by some cocky confident guy who just acts entitled. you know how if a woman looks a certain way, she just looks sexy. if a man ACTS a certain way, it has the same effect. and Trump does act that way, he justs acts indifferent, entitled and like he couldnt give a sh*t. and women WANT the validation from the guy who doesnt give a sh*t. they dont want the validation from the gentleman, they already know he wants her. hot women get hit up all day by "nice guys", they are totally numb to it. But when they get hit up by some guy who has those icey and indifferent behaviours...now they suddenly want what they dont have. its just human nature. i better search for a journal article for bojack...from the journal of "what works in the field" perhaps

You're a con artist for the elite: you want to classify the sheeple into their ability to shed blood for your institutions that you hide behind.

You're a sycophant yet well hidden for some reason: in other words you're a fascist!

You care about nothing and therefore have no strength!

You cower... basically you're nothing!

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:52pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 12:44pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 10:19am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 9:40am: i think it literally pisses a lot of guys off to see some (well in their mind) arrogant douche bag who maybe isnt even good looking, be able to immediately go physical with a girl. Ah yes... Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street... Footy heroes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzKSFbsh2Y

One of the best songs ever  ;)

What constitutes a fact as oposed to an alternative fact?

That discernment is at the mercy of "the elephant". 

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:09pm:

What constitutes a fact as oposed to an alternative fact? That discernment is at the mercy of "the elephant".

Well for instance the Bowling Green massacre is an alternative fact right?

See - theres that elephant again. 

The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:

See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump.

I'd recognise it as a mistake if it was done once.  Kellyanne Conway gave two more interviews where she mentioned the same massacre. Then there was an attempt to say well they caused a massacre in Iraq.

Additionally the list of terrorist attacks that werent supposedly given media attention.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:

See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump.

You're talking about approximation method!

Therefore I find it has it's merits as an argument, for sure! (If not an argumentive method, to be more for sure!)

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:37pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:26pm: See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump. You're talking about approximation method! Therefore I find it has it's merits as an argument, for sure! (If not an argumentive method, to be more for sure!)

Yes, the way i see it is that for meaning to be conveyed, while the speaker obviously needs to make every effort to clearly express themselves, but also the reader needs to want to understand. 

Sadly, most are just looking for a green light to remain fixed in their preconceptions.  Its the real life equivalent of throwing out an argument in its entirety because of a spelling mistake or a misplaced apostrophe, which we see all the time online.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:03pm:

Not sure how when every right wing web site says its debunked, that it means its debunked. If the model is flawed, surely thats for a statistician to say isn't it?

So you don't think that reworking a model that is unstable and not fit for purpose, is proof enough? Interesting, but stupid. (Laugh In)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:26pm: See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump. I'd recognise it as a mistake if it was done once.  Kellyanne Conway gave two more interviews where she mentioned the same massacre. Then there was an attempt to say well they caused a massacre in Iraq. Additionally the list of terrorist attacks that werent supposedly given media attention.

Even though you can easily figure out what she meant, you chose not to entertain the thought.

Elephant on the rampage.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:36pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:26pm: See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump. I'd recognise it as a mistake if it was done once.  Kellyanne Conway gave two more interviews where she mentioned the same massacre. Then there was an attempt to say well they caused a massacre in Iraq. Additionally the list of terrorist attacks that werent supposedly given media attention. Even though you can easily figure out what she meant, you chose not to entertain the thought. Elephant on the rampage.

Because from a spokesman for a President we expect better. PLus just admit the mistake not the sidetracking and obfuscation.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:03pm: Not sure how when every right wing web site says its debunked, that it means its debunked. If the model is flawed, surely thats for a statistician to say isn't it? So you don't think that reworking a model that is unstable and not fit for purpose, is proof enough? Interesting, but stupid. (Laugh In)

No, sceince changes its models base don new evidence all the time. Thats science.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:26pm: See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump. You're talking about approximation method! Therefore I find it has it's merits as an argument, for sure! (If not an argumentive method, to be more for sure!) Yes, the way i see it is that for meaning to be conveyed, while the speaker obviously needs to make every effort to clearly express themselves, but also the reader needs to want to understand.  Sadly, most are just looking for a green light to remain fixed in their preconceptions.  Its the real life equivalent of throwing out an argument in its entirety because of a spelling mistake or a misplaced apostrophe, which we see all the time online.

Yeh,

I think I read recently that: most people listen to respond... they don't listen to listen.

We're all sinners I suppose.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:26pm: See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump. You're talking about approximation method! Therefore I find it has it's merits as an argument, for sure! (If not an argumentive method, to be more for sure!) Yes, the way i see it is that for meaning to be conveyed, while the speaker obviously needs to make every effort to clearly express themselves, but also the reader needs to want to understand.  Sadly, most are just looking for a green light to remain fixed in their preconceptions.  Its the real life equivalent of throwing out an argument in its entirety because of a spelling mistake or a misplaced apostrophe, which we see all the time online.

Yeh,

I think I read recently that: most people listen to respond... they don't listen to listen.

We're all sinners I suppose.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 10:40am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 10:27am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 10:24am: any thing else i can help you with? You could explain why you condone sexual assault. I condone studying what works and what doesnt work in the real social dynamic of interacting with women. Do so and you will discover that most beta male behaviour and most gentlemanly behaviour is creepy to women. they wont admit that, but if you study real social dynmaics in the real world (ie, if you go out and interact with women), you will find that most of the mainstream advice to men on how to behave is completely wrong and you will have to rewrite the rule book. essentially Trump may well be operating from a set of beliefs and behaviours which are more honest then the creepy and manipulative set of beliefs and behaviours that most men operate from.

What would YOU of all people know what women want. You work, play and sleep with horses.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:09pm:

What constitutes a fact as oposed to an alternative fact? That discernment is at the mercy of "the elephant".

That you would even ask such an absurd question is indicative of the maladjustment in your head.  a fact is a TRUTH whereas an 'alternative fact' is fiction or lies dressed up in garb to confuse the gullible and stupid ie you.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:26pm: See - theres that elephant again.  The rider would recognise a mistake by another person, the elephant demands it be called a malicious lie attributable directly to President Trump. You're talking about approximation method! Therefore I find it has it's merits as an argument, for sure! (If not an argumentive method, to be more for sure!) Yes, the way i see it is that for meaning to be conveyed, while the speaker obviously needs to make every effort to clearly express themselves, but also the reader needs to want to understand.  Sadly, most are just looking for a green light to remain fixed in their preconceptions.  Its the real life equivalent of throwing out an argument in its entirety because of a spelling mistake or a misplaced apostrophe, which we see all the time online.

How does the thrice-stated Bowling Green Massacre lie in any way the responsibility of the hearer/reader to understand? it was a lie, pure and simple.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:09pm: What constitutes a fact as oposed to an alternative fact? That discernment is at the mercy of "the elephant".  That you would even ask such an absurd question is indicative of the maladjustment in your head.  a fact is a TRUTH whereas an 'alternative fact' is fiction or lies dressed up in garb to confuse the gullible and stupid ie you.

Aaaand longy doesnt get it.

Surprise surprise.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:11pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 1:09pm: What constitutes a fact as oposed to an alternative fact? That discernment is at the mercy of "the elephant".  That you would even ask such an absurd question is indicative of the maladjustment in your head.  a fact is a TRUTH whereas an 'alternative fact' is fiction or lies dressed up in garb to confuse the gullible and stupid ie you. Aaaand longy doesnt get it. Surprise surprise.

how lame are you... If you 'get it' then explain to us all how an aternative fact is anything other than an error or a lie.

DRAH got it no trouble, while you still havent even reached step one.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

DRAH got it no trouble, while you still havent even reached step one.

possibly worst example you could quote. He is insane from drug overdose.

Care to try and convince an intelligent and NON-insane fellow poster or are you going to rely on hyperbole instead?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:20pm:

Care to try and convince an intelligent and NON-insane fellow poster

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Surely you're not referring to yourself?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:20pm: Care to try and convince an intelligent and NON-insane fellow poster ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Surely you're not referring to yourself?

its funny watching you refuse to answer. Its all we need to know that you dont have an answer - or at least one that doesnt involve 'alternative facts'

LOL

I certainly do have an answer to my own question, it's just that you won't like it.

Put it this way - a fact is something you agree with, from a source hostile to the symbol of your hatred.

Alternative fact - something neutral or positive towards the symbol of your hatred, or from a source you don't like.

Since you cant or wont confirm the absolute truth of a statement, instead relying on various sources of varying degrees of bias, you instead accept as incontrovertible fact the one that more neatly fits with your prejudices.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:37pm:

I certainly do have an answer to my own question, it's just that you won't like it. Put it this way - a fact is something you agree with, from a source hostile to the symbol of your hatred. Alternative fact - something neutral or positive towards the symbol of your hatred, or from a source you don't like. Since you cant or wont confirm the absolute truth of a statement, instead relying on various sources of varying degrees of bias, you instead accept as incontrovertible fact the one that more neatly fits with your prejudices.

what utter rubbish. A FACT IS A FACT regardless of context or opinion. For example, there was NO bowling green massacre and not 'alternative fact' will change that.

you are a nutter... but entertaining as so many fools can be.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:44pm:

A FACT IS A FACT

Genius.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:44pm: A FACT IS A FACT Genius.

and yet to you, a fact is subjective and alterable by context or desire.

idiot.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:04pm:

No, not really. The true chain of "logic" at play here is: I dont like Trump Therefore I will accept any accusation levelled at him.

Sure, I understand that which is why I will wait until there is evidence for things like the claims of child abuse etc, but this isn't an accusation against him, this was a boastful admission from the man himself.

I'm sure it's been covered here before and to death, and I'm sure it just ended with his supporters unwilling to accept what he said, or will dismiss it as locker room talk or "what he meant was" etc.

If that's the case, this is a pointless exercise.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:37pm:

I certainly do have an answer to my own question, it's just that you won't like it. Put it this way - a fact is something you agree with, from a source hostile to the symbol of your hatred. Alternative fact - something neutral or positive towards the symbol of your hatred, or from a source you don't like. Since you cant or wont confirm the absolute truth of a statement, instead relying on various sources of varying degrees of bias, you instead accept as incontrovertible fact the one that more neatly fits with your prejudices.

So was there a Bowling green massacre?

The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States.

That last one would make a good movie.

97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.

Raven wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:

The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.

Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra. Although Obama was sure it was 99%, Of course he was also trying to visit 58 American states.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:37pm: I certainly do have an answer to my own question, it's just that you won't like it. Put it this way - a fact is something you agree with, from a source hostile to the symbol of your hatred. Alternative fact - something neutral or positive towards the symbol of your hatred, or from a source you don't like. Since you cant or wont confirm the absolute truth of a statement, instead relying on various sources of varying degrees of bias, you instead accept as incontrovertible fact the one that more neatly fits with your prejudices. So was there a Bowling green massacre?

Honky wont answer that. He doesnt even have the decency to be embarrassed by the claim.

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra

Yeah because it's backed up by science.

Does this mean you fall in the 3%?

Raven wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 10:50pm:

lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%?

When science mixes with politics the results are generally lies.
Trump is trying to separate the two - he should be applauded.

Truth is scientists do not know whats causing global warming or even if its happening.

Richdude wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 1:18am:

Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? When science mixes with politics the results are generally lies. Trump is trying to separate the two - he should be applauded. Truth is scientists do not know whats causing global warming or even if its happening.

So peer reviewed science is a lie, but a plucky billionaire named Trump with zero scientific knowledge is going to get to the bottom of this issue?

Ok let's assume that global warming, more specifically man made global warming, is a myth. Should we as responsible human beings at least act like it's a real thing. Yeah if we're wrong oh well, live and learn. But if we're right then by Odin we need to act quickly. The effects could be devastating to our society.

Raven wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 10:50pm:

lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%?

The '97%' claim has long since been debunked and a more thorough - and peer-reviewed - study found the figure at around 30%. The rest simply state that they dont know.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? The '97%' claim has long since been debunked and a more thorough - and peer-reviewed - study found the figure at around 30%. The rest simply state that they dont know.

But didnt a large proportion of those say it was likely?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 10:23am:

Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? The '97%' claim has long since been debunked ...

Indeed, it has.

I'm surprised that people are still trying to push that particular "argument".

Perhaps they're fans of Goebbels.

"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 10:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:23am: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? The '97%' claim has long since been debunked and a more thorough - and peer-reviewed - study found the figure at around 30%. The rest simply state that they dont know. But didnt a large proportion of those say it was likely?

no the vast majority said they simply didnt know. I dont remember the source, but Ive given up saving these things because the climate hysterics disbelieve anything they dont like so the purpose in showing proof is limited.

Also, given the massive failure of climate predictions  it would make sense most reputable scientists would back away from making strong claims that would be most likely proven wrong. we simply dont know .1% of what we need to know to make accurate predictions and to lay blame.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 10:52am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:23am: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? The '97%' claim has long since been debunked and a more thorough - and peer-reviewed - study found the figure at around 30%. The rest simply state that they dont know. But didnt a large proportion of those say it was likely? no the vast majority said they simply didnt know. I dont remember the source, but Ive given up saving these things because the climate hysterics disbelieve anything they dont like so the purpose in showing proof is limited. Also, given the massive failure of climate predictions  it would make sense most reputable scientists would back away from making strong claims that would be most likely proven wrong. we simply dont know .1% of what we need to know to make accurate predictions and to lay blame.

What I was trying to intimate is that its an example of Dunning-Kruger. IN that scientists who know a fair bit know that there are automatically some errors and things we dont know, so don't express certainty.

The less you know the more confident you are.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 10:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:52am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:23am: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? The '97%' claim has long since been debunked and a more thorough - and peer-reviewed - study found the figure at around 30%. The rest simply state that they dont know. But didnt a large proportion of those say it was likely? no the vast majority said they simply didnt know. I dont remember the source, but Ive given up saving these things because the climate hysterics disbelieve anything they dont like so the purpose in showing proof is limited. Also, given the massive failure of climate predictions  it would make sense most reputable scientists would back away from making strong claims that would be most likely proven wrong. we simply dont know .1% of what we need to know to make accurate predictions and to lay blame. What I was trying to intimate is that its an example of Dunning-Kruger. IN that scientists who know a fair bit know that there are automatically some errors and things we dont know, so don't express certainty. The less you know the more confident you are.

exactly. We know a great deal about the structure of matter and yet you will not find a physicist making bold claims about what the future holds because as soon as we discover one thing, we uncover 100 more unknowns.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 10:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:52am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:23am: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Raven wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm: The President is a profoundly anti-intellectual man, someone who has no idea what wind is, who thinks vaccines cause autism, and who often thought that climate change is an international conspiracy specifically designed to hurt the United States. That last one would make a good movie. 97% of the world's scientists come up with the global warming hoax but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies. Yeah, but you believe the 97% mantra Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%? The '97%' claim has long since been debunked and a more thorough - and peer-reviewed - study found the figure at around 30%. The rest simply state that they dont know. But didnt a large proportion of those say it was likely? no the vast majority said they simply didnt know. I dont remember the source, but Ive given up saving these things because the climate hysterics disbelieve anything they dont like so the purpose in showing proof is limited. Also, given the massive failure of climate predictions  it would make sense most reputable scientists would back away from making strong claims that would be most likely proven wrong. we simply dont know .1% of what we need to know to make accurate predictions and to lay blame. What I was trying to intimate is that its an example of Dunning-Kruger. IN that scientists who know a fair bit know that there are automatically some errors and things we dont know, so don't express certainty. The less you know the more confident you are.

It is actually some of this arrogance about 'the science is settled' that was the first clue that they didnt know much at all.  I research in an area of psychology and whenever I think I am about to grasp some basic principle, it splits up into yet more subcategories.

Raven wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 10:50pm:

Yeah because it's backed up by science. Does this mean you fall in the 3%?

Perhaps you can tell us which 97% claim you like?

Cook?

Anderegg?

Doran & Zimmerman?

Each has its own flaws.

post

bump