• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Admin Admits to Global Warming

Lord of Planar said:
Todays math...

I believe they taught us proper rounding in 4th or 5th grade. Are colleges that far behind now?
Click to expand...

That's assuming he went to college or even finished K-12! That might be a rash assumption!
 
ataraxia said:
Maybe. Except I would be paying for the Sina of others I tried to convince otherwise. That’s not very fair. I would’ve thought God would be more fair than that!
Click to expand...

Interesting. You're the first member of the Church of Global Warming that I've come across that admits that!
 
ataraxia said:
Maybe. Except I would be paying for the Sina of others I tried to convince otherwise. That’s not very fair. I would’ve thought God would be more fair than that!
Click to expand...

Maybe it counts for your sins. Now let's consider the sides here. One ignorant, no worries, good time. The other worried, trying to convince others and failing, perhaps finally desperate. I'm not so sure this is even about them.
 
jmotivator said:
You are really super awful at math.
Click to expand...

Actually I’m super good at math. Why else do you think it was so easy for me to prove (post 12) I’m right?
 
calamity said:
Actually I’m super good at math. Why else do you think it was so easy for me to prove (post 12) I’m right?
Click to expand...

No, that is not how rounding works and you should feel shame for demonstrating your inability to grasp 3rd grade math concepts.
 
Jack Hays said:
Seems to fit.

A media bootstrap is the process whereby a story or meme is deliberately (but artificially) produced by self and peer-referential journalism, originally within a tight circle of media content originators, often commencing with stories written within the same media organization. This story is then expanded into a general media "accepted wisdom" with the aim of having it accepted as self-evident "common knowledge" by the reading, listening and viewing publics. The key feature of a media bootstrap is that as little hard, verifiable, external evidence as possible is used to support the story, preference being given to the citation (often unattributed) of other media stories, i.e. "journalists interviewing journalists".
Because the campaign is usually originated and at least initially concocted internally by a media organization with a particular agenda in mind, within a closed loop of reportage and opinionation, the campaign is said to have "pulled itself up by its own bootstraps".
A bootstrap campaign should be distinguished from a genuine news story of genuine interest, such as a natural disaster that kills thousands, or the death of a respected public figure. It is legitimate for these stories to be given coverage across all media platforms. What distinguishes a bootstrap from a real story is the contrived and organized manner in which the bootstrap appears to come out of nowhere. A bootstrap commonly claims to be tapping a hitherto unrecognized phenomenon within society.
As self-levitating by pulling on one's bootstraps is physically impossible, this is often used by the bootstrappers themselves to deny the possibility that the bootstrap campaign is indeed concocted and artificial. They assert that it has arisen via a groundswell of public opinion. Media campaigns that are openly admitted as concocted (e.g. a public service campaign titled "Let's Clean Up Our City") are usually ignored by other media organizations for reasons related to competition. On the other hand, the true bootstrap welcomes the participation of other media organizations, indeed encourages it, as this participation gains the bootstrap notoriety and, most importantly, legitimacy.
Click to expand...

So you were just trying to sound numerate and failing badly! :lamo
 
Surface Detail said:
So you were just trying to sound numerate and failing badly! :lamo
Click to expand...

My comment had nothing to do with "sounding numerate" (whatever you think that is). I was calling out a propaganda tactic. Your narrow view has led you astray.

It's cooling anyway.


UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
My comment had nothing to do with "sounding numerate" (whatever you think that is). I was calling out a propaganda tactic. Your narrow view has led you astray.
Click to expand...

Incorrect rounding is a propaganda tactic? It's a view, I suppose. It has bugger all to do with statistics though.
 
calamity said:
lol...3.487 = 3.49 = 3.5 = 4
Click to expand...

You are rounding up to the nearest whole number instead of rounding to the nearest whole number. Rounding to the nearest whole number would put 3.487 down to 3. Personally, I would just call it 3.5 for discussion purposes. -- But even then, the discussion would be meaningless since that number is just a random number (and an argument from randU fallacy)
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Does 3.487 round off to 3.49? Yes or no.

Does 3.49 round off to 3.5? Yes or no.

Does 3.5 round off to 4? Yes or no.

Ergo, 3.487 = 4.
Click to expand...

That's not how rounding works in mathematics... That's only under "Calamity Mathematics" apparently...
 
Threegoofs said:
Love the whining about reality.

3.5 degrees is not good.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Plus, it doesn't even matter anyway because this is just an argument from randU fallacy
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
That's not how rounding works in mathematics... That's only under "Calamity Mathematics" apparently...
Click to expand...

People who round like that are easily duped...
 
calamity said:
EVERYONE in the know knows that man is behind the warming. The only people not knowing it are the useful idiots. And, yes. Trump, with the help of Right Wing media, is lying to them all the time. That they believe him and the talking heads is what makes them useful...and, of course, idiots.
Click to expand...

Sadly the fossil fuel companies have been successful in deceiving people about climate change and delaying action on climate change.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W7YpiXszaUk

Think for example that US have a president that want to continue supporting and deregulated the coal industry. That he doesn’t care about climate change, toxic pollution from coal plants or the fact that even the American coal companies have a pessimistic view of the future of coal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...shutting-despite-trump-s-order-to-rescue-them

While Trump also doesn’t care about that wind or solar power are already the cheapest electricity option in most Republican congressional districts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#b38cef33da79

While at the same time there are also hope. Like for example that a majority of Americans wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Also there are ways to make your friends, colleagues or neighbors be more aware and accepting about climate change and the need for actons. There a start is to talk about your own convictions and meet them as a friend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...01534b1e132_story.html?utm_term=.449a14d5d945
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Sadly the fossil fuel companies have been successful in deceiving people about climate change and delaying action on climate change.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W7YpiXszaUk

Think for example that US have a president that want to continue supporting and deregulated the coal industry. That he doesn’t care about climate change, toxic pollution from coal plants or the fact that even the American coal companies have a pessimistic view of the future of coal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...shutting-despite-trump-s-order-to-rescue-them

While Trump also doesn’t care about that wind or solar power are already the cheapest electricity option in most Republican congressional districts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#b38cef33da79

While at the same time there are also hope. Like for example that a majority of Americans wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Also there are ways to make your friends, colleagues or neighbors be more aware and accepting about climate change and the need for actons. There a start is to talk about your own convictions and meet them as a friend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...01534b1e132_story.html?utm_term=.449a14d5d945
Click to expand...
Repeated postings of the same old drivel does not make it true!
The reality is that the oil companies do not care if AGW is real or not, their profits will be the same ether way.
If taxes are raised, it will be passed on. Transport fuels are not usually discretionary expenses.
People may minimize their usage, but they are unlikely to eliminate it.
The demand for hydrocarbon fuels will be strong for another several decades, and likely much more than that,
baring some radical improvement in other energy storage technology.
The question is will those hydrocarbon fuels be made from oil or not, the oil companies do not actually care,
as what they sell are finished fuel products, not oil.
 
longview said:
Repeated postings of the same old drivel does not make it true!
The reality is that the oil companies do not care if AGW is real or not, their profits will be the same ether way.
If taxes are raised, it will be passed on. Transport fuels are not usually discretionary expenses.
People may minimize their usage, but they are unlikely to eliminate it.
The demand for hydrocarbon fuels will be strong for another several decades, and likely much more than that,
baring some radical improvement in other energy storage technology.
The question is will those hydrocarbon fuels be made from oil or not, the oil companies do not actually care,
as what they sell are finished fuel products, not oil.
Click to expand...

The Climate Deception Dossiers is an extensive documentation over decades of corporate disinformation from the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

You also have this study from Harvard that shows that Exxon mislead the public over several decades.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/...ed-public-on-climate-science-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

There oil companies like ExxonMobil and BP have continued to fund climate disinformation campaigns.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-neg...sinformation-campaign-is-still-alive-and-well

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups

There the fossil fuel companies investments in disinformation have payed off. Think for example that the US have a president that have claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385
 
calamity said:
In a strange twist, while preaching one thing: "global warming is fake news"; the Trump administration is preparing for a 4 Degree increase in global temperatures by 2100.

The Trump Administration Anticipates Catastrophic Global Warming by 2100

What does 4 deg of warming mean? Oh, not too much, just this.



So, one has to wonder. What gives? Why sell ignorance to the uneducated plebes who worship at Trumps feet, while planning for the inevitable warming that scientists and everyone with a brain has been warning about for a few decades?

Cynicism. Play the fools for fools, and then move the goalposts when the time is right.




Well, we all know they have deplorable down pat.
Click to expand...

Thirty years ago scientists said hundreds of years of records proved the earth's atmosphere was cooling. It took only 30 years to turn things around so I suspect a lot could go wrong with AGW alarmist predictions in 80 years.
 
marke said:
Thirty years ago scientists said hundreds of years of records proved the earth's atmosphere was cooling. It took only 30 years to turn things around so I suspect a lot could go wrong with AGW alarmist predictions in 80 years.
Click to expand...

You might learn something by reading the following American Meteoroligical Society study that addresses your comment.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Other than 1971, it was never even close to a majority of scientists that voiced this opinion.

Global_Cooling_1970s_Myth.JPG

The few that voiced this opinion, did so, because there was a slight cooling between the 1940s and 1970s, mainly because of the unabated particulate air pollution (aerosols), blocking of the sun.
 
Media_Truth said:
You might learn something by reading the following American Meteoroligical Society study that addresses your comment.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Other than 1971, it was never even close to a majority of scientists that voiced this opinion.

View attachment 67241720

The few that voiced this opinion, did so, because there was a slight cooling between the 1940s and 1970s, mainly because of the unabated particulate air pollution (aerosols), blocking of the sun.
Click to expand...

Sure. Nobody in the scientific world took global cooling seriously. Whatever you want to believe. I believe no serious search for truth about climate change will show up either alarming cooling or alarming warming trends either.
 
Media_Truth said:
You might learn something by reading the following American Meteoroligical Society study that addresses your comment.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Other than 1971, it was never even close to a majority of scientists that voiced this opinion.

View attachment 67241720

The few that voiced this opinion, did so, because there was a slight cooling between the 1940s and 1970s, mainly because of the unabated particulate air pollution (aerosols), blocking of the sun.
Click to expand...

There isn't majority scientists claiming AGW is the warming cause either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom