Idiotic Environmental Predictions

[Lord of Planar]

That's certainly something you can hypothesize. I'm sure that's it. Because otherwise we'd have to believe the scientists and that might harsh our mellow.

I don't see scientists engaging in scare tactics, except those like you. The papers are scenarios, not reality. Show me one that isn't a model of "what ifs" and says we will see disasters.

It's the pundits who lie about the papers!

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't see scientists engaging in scare tactics, except those like you. The papers are scenarios, not reality. Show me one that isn't a model of "what ifs" and says we will see disasters.

It's the pundits who lie about the papers!

Yet, when I post quotes from the GUYS WHO WRITE THE PAPERS, you dismiss them as pundits.

 

[istodolez]

I don't see scientists engaging in scare tactics, except those like you. The papers are scenarios, not reality. Show me one that isn't a model of "what ifs" and says we will see disasters.

It's the pundits who lie about the papers!

again with the word “lies”.

children can’t disagree with someone without characterizing the other side as lies.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yet, when I post quotes from the GUYS WHO WRITE THE PAPERS, you dismiss them as pundits.

If you say so...

 

[Lord of Planar]

again with the word “lies”.

children can’t disagree with someone without characterizing the other side as lies.

They represent something as fact, that is not said to be fact in the papers.

that constitutes a lie.

 

[NatMorton]

guessing you don’t actually know what that was in reference to

That would be an incorrect guess.

 

[istodolez]

That would be an incorrect guess.

So you think that by invoking it there is some nefarious meaning? I'm doubtful that my guess is incorrect.

 

[istodolez]

They represent something as fact, that is not said to be fact in the papers.

that constitutes a lie.

Ummm, no. A lie is something that is said that is incorrect by someone who KNOWS it is incorrect but they say it anyway.

What you are talking about is possibly a "mistake", or more likely, just "something you disagree with".

A lie requires a second act which is the malfeasance of saying something that one KNOWS to be untrue but still saying it as if it is untrue.

You really should pay more attention to the words you use. Sounds to me like you are pretty lax in that area.

 

[NatMorton]

So you think that by invoking it there is some nefarious meaning? I'm doubtful that my guess is incorrect.

What you should doubt is your ability to infer my meaning accurately.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ummm, no. A lie is something that is said that is incorrect by someone who KNOWS it is incorrect but they say it anyway.

What you are talking about is possibly a "mistake", or more likely, just "something you disagree with".

A lie requires a second act which is the malfeasance of saying something that one KNOWS to be untrue but still saying it as if it is untrue.

You really should pay more attention to the words you use. Sounds to me like you are pretty lax in that area.

Yes, the pundits lie. And no. A lie does not require knowing it is one. A lie is a lie.

2 : something that misleads or deceives

Definition of LIE

to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position : be prostrate : rest, recline; to assume a horizontal position —often used with down; to reside temporarily : stay for the night : lodge… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[istodolez]

Yes, the pundits lie. And no. A lie does not require knowing it is one. A lie is a lie.

2 : something that misleads or deceives

Definition of LIE

to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position : be prostrate : rest, recline; to assume a horizontal position —often used with down; to reside temporarily : stay for the night : lodge… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

a lie requires that it be purposeful.

otherwise it is a mistake.

learn the difference

 

[Lord of Planar]

a lie requires that it be purposeful.

otherwise it is a mistake.

learn the difference

What UofI (university of indoctrination) did you learn that in? Are you saying Websters is wrong?

 

[istodolez]

What UofI (university of indoctrination) did you learn that in? Are you saying Websters is wrong?

Do you honestly not understand that one has to have mens rea for it to be a lie? Do you honestly not understand that when someone lies it has to be with the intent?

Really?????

WOAH.

How do you differentiate between a "lie" and simply an "error"?

When you make a mistake and say something wrong are you lying?

Jeez....shudder. Here I thought you actually cared about language and technical meaning.

When Websters says DECEIVE they are saying that EXPLICITLY.

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you honestly not understand that one has to have mens rea for it to be a lie? Do you honestly not understand that when someone lies it has to be with the intent?

Really?????

WOAH.

How do you differentiate between a "lie" and simply an "error"?

When you make a mistake and say something wrong are you lying?

Jeez....shudder. Here I thought you actually cared about language and technical meaning.

When Websters says DECEIVE they are saying that EXPLICITLY.

Wow. Just...wow.

Does it really matter this differing opinion between you and Websters?

The fact is, knowingly or unknowingly, pundits misrepresent what the papers say.

 

[Threegoofs]

Does it really matter this differing opinion between you and Websters?

The fact is, knowingly or unknowingly, pundits misrepresent what the papers say.

Here’s a guy who describes his own research very well,

But you don’t like what he says, so he’s a ‘pundit’.

RS Interview: Climate Scientist Michael Mann

Michael Mann talks with Jeff Goodell about his forthcoming book, “The New Climate War,” what he’s learned from the pandemic, and the future of climate politics

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here’s a guy who describes his own research very well,

But you don’t like what he says, so he’s a ‘pundit’.

RS Interview: Climate Scientist Michael Mann

Michael Mann talks with Jeff Goodell about his forthcoming book, “The New Climate War,” what he’s learned from the pandemic, and the future of climate politics

www.rollingstone.com

Michael Mann is one of the few scienttists that dishonor his profession.

 

[Threegoofs]

Michael Mann is one of the few scienttists that dishonor his profession.

Because.... you don’t like what he says.

here’s another. I could go onforever...

Eco Interviews: Berkeley's Zeke Hausfather Weighs In On The Shifting Climate

In Today's Eco Interviews we speak to Zeke Hausfather. He is a data specialist for Berkeley Earth in the process of getting his Doctorate. We speak about the controversy regarding the NOAA/ NASA temperature record. The agencies have been accused of cooking

cbs12.com

 

[istodolez]

Does it really matter this differing opinion between you and Websters?

Did you miss the word "deceive" in the Webster's?

The fact is, knowingly or unknowingly, pundits misrepresent what the papers say.

You don't know that. You merely CLAIM it. It could be they interpret it correctly. Or it could be that they misinterpret it without knowing they are misinterpretting it.

Which is why you cannot say they are "lying" unless you know if they did so with the intent of deception.

(I wish you actually understood what I was talking about here. It's kind of one of the foundations of law.)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Did you miss the word "deceive" in the Webster's?

Not at all.

I guess you don't understand the difference between "or" and "and." Did you look up "misleads?"

I showed the definition that said "something that misleads or deceives."

You don't know that. You merely CLAIM it. It could be they interpret it correctly. Or it could be that they misinterpret it without knowing they are misinterpretting it.

Which is why you cannot say they are "lying" unless you know if they did so with the intent of deception.

(I wish you actually understood what I was talking about here. It's kind of one of the foundations of law.)

I know what I see when a pundit reference a source paper, and they misrepresent what it says.

Why are you focusing on this, instead of the debate at hand? I did revise my remarks saying "The fact is, knowingly or unknowingly, pundits misrepresent what the papers say."

I think you are just avoiding the fact you are wrong.

 

[Sandokan]

Making Energy Prices Skyrocket

Making Energy Prices Skyrocket | Real Climate Science

Posted on January 30, 2021 by tonyheller

Twelve years ago, Obama and Biden promised to make energy prices skyrocket. They effectively shut down the US nuclear energy industry, and Obama is now doing the same to oil and gas. This is leading to high energy prices and inevitably more Middle East wars.

[video][/video]

The Democratic party plan since Obama election has been the skyrocketing of energy provided by coal, oil and gas, and crippling the nuclear industry. This is their way to take over the energy sector and push ahead with their socialist agenda. Biden administration, through executive actions, already stop construction of the Keystone Pipeline, reestablished a moratorium on offshore drilling and added additional federal fuel tax to gasoline.

 

[istodolez]

Not at all.

I guess you don't understand the difference between "or" and "and." Did you look up "misleads?"

The fact remains that for a lie to be a lie it must be INTENTIONAL that one is misleading.

THAT is the basis of our rule of law.

(*at least in America...I'm not sure where you live, but apparently understanding simple words is not required)

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact remains that for a lie to be a lie it must be INTENTIONAL that one is misleading.

THAT is the basis of our rule of law.

(*at least in America...I'm not sure where you live, but apparently understanding simple words is not required)

Why do you do this?

You focus on things outside of the debate. I later said something like misrepresents, but that doesn't satisfy you. We disagree with the definition. So be it. Let it go. All I see is you want to focus on something outside the topic.

Is that because you are incapable of debating me in topics of science.

 

[watsup]

I don't see scientists engaging in scare tactics, except those like you. The papers are scenarios, not reality. Show me one that isn't a model of "what ifs" and says we will see disasters.

It's the pundits who lie about the papers!

Models are important in determining the future of the climate.

 

[watsup]

Not at all.

I guess you don't understand the difference between "or" and "and." Did you look up "misleads?"

I showed the definition that said "something that misleads or deceives."


I know what I see when a pundit reference a source paper, and they misrepresent what it says.

Why are you focusing on this, instead of the debate at hand? I did revise my remarks saying "The fact is, knowingly or unknowingly, pundits misrepresent what the papers say."

I think you are just avoiding the fact you are wrong.

And yet again with the "pundits" talking point that means basically nothing.

 

[watsup]

The Democratic party plan since Obama election has been the skyrocketing of energy provided by coal, oil and gas, and crippling the nuclear industry. This is their way to take over the energy sector and push ahead with their socialist agenda. Biden administration, through executive actions, already stop construction of the Keystone Pipeline, reestablished a moratorium on offshore drilling and added additional federal fuel tax to gasoline.

Yeah, whatever.