• 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!

We find no convincing evidence ....

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?



  • [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.

    [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

    [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

No convincing evidence.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

“No convincing evidence” and “no possibility” are not the same thing.
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

ex0rqf4.jpg
 

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,278
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?



  • [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.

    [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

    [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)

Trump will insists that because they're scientitists they have a political agenda.

Conservatives have become anti-intellectuals. They want to return to the dark ages. Maybe they have their own wizards and priests who advise them about climate change.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

Of what possibility, specifically, do you imagine I've remarked?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Of what possibility, specifically, do you imagine I've remarked?

Please re-read what I said and asked. I did not assert that you asserted any possibility. I'm asking you if you agreed with my assessment of what they said.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please re-read what I said and asked. I did not assert that you asserted any possibility. I'm asking you if you agreed with my assessment of what they said.

Okay, please identify what possibility you think NOAA is saying doesn't exist.

My central aim is to learn precisely what possibility you think be removed from consideration or existential manifestation, not really who, NOAA or I, has concluded the possibility's probability of materializing is zero.

Surely you don't expect me to say "yes" or "no," or even give a qualified "yes" or "no" when I don't know exactly about what possibility you're asking. Ask me about a specific possibility, and I'll give you as direct an answer as I can.
 
Last edited:

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay, please identify what possibility you think NOAA is saying doesn't exist.

My central aim is to learn precisely what possibility you think be removed from consideration or existential manifestation, not really who, NOAA or I, has concluded the possibility's probability of materializing is zero.

Surely you don't expect me to say "yes" or "no," or even give a qualified "yes" or "no" when I don't know exactly about what possibility you're asking.

I said "no possibility". In other words any and all possibilities that would have been possible is not possible.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

Of what possibility, specifically, do you imagine I've remarked?
Please re-read what I said and asked. I did not assert that you asserted any possibility. I'm asking you if you agreed with my assessment of what they said.

Okay, please identify what possibility you think NOAA is saying doesn't exist.

My central aim is to learn precisely what possibility you think be removed from consideration or existential manifestation, not really who, NOAA or I, has concluded the possibility's probability of materializing is zero.

Surely you don't expect me to say "yes" or "no," or even give a qualified "yes" or "no" when I don't know exactly about what possibility you're asking. Ask me about a specific possibility, and I'll give you as direct an answer as I can.

I said "no possibility". In other words any and all possibilities that would have been possible is not possible.
Well, of course, NOAA is not eliminating every stinking possibility that exists in the world and their report doesn't purport to do so.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,706
Reaction score
7,734
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

What is the point of your argument or the argument you appear to want to make? That in the face of drought, increases in death and destruction from western wild fires and from floods and storms of both unusual size and strength in the South and East that we should just continue to do NOTHING until there is "no possibility whatsoever" that the preponderance of effect since the onset of the Industrial Age is from human contribution? Sea level has risen a foot.....A FOOT.

Do you live in Ohio? Are you hoping for beachfront property if you wait long enough?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, of course, NOAA is not eliminating every stinking possibility that exists in the world and their report doesn't purport to do so.

So, when you said "cannot be any more unequivocal than that" there IS the possibility of equivocation? Meaning that there ARE possible explanations outside of what they stated.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, when you said "cannot be any more unequivocal than that" there IS the possibility of equivocation? Meaning that there ARE possible explanations outside of what they stated.
  1. Red: No. NOAA's statements are and cannot be any more unequivocal. That's what I wrote and it's what I meant.
  2. Blue: That is not what equivocal/unequivocal means. You do not get to redefine "equivocal"/"unequivocal."
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please re-read what I said and asked. I did not assert that you asserted any possibility. I'm asking you if you agreed with my assessment of what they said.

Your assessment of what they said doesn't actually reflect what they said.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

But you just admitted that NOAA is not eliminating every "stinking" possibility that exists. So either there IS another possibility, or there isn't. Which is it?

Blue: That is not what equivocal/unequivocal means. You do not get to redefine "equivocal"/"unequivocal."

I'm not redefining anything. :shrug: Either your describing statement of what they said is "unequivocal" or it is "equivocal". If its unequivocal then other possibilities do not exist. If its equivocal then other possibilities do exist.
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
34,146
Reaction score
11,352
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?



  • [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.

    [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

    [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)
Not sure career government workers at NOAA can be categorized as "Trump Administration's own . . ."
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But you just admitted that NOAA is not eliminating every "stinking" possibility that exists. So either there IS another possibility, or there isn't. Which is it?



I'm not redefining anything. :shrug: Either your describing statement of what they said is "unequivocal" or it is "equivocal". If its unequivocal then other possibilities do not exist. If its equivocal then other possibilities do exist.
WTF? Do you have a case to make in refutation of NOAA's findings or don't you? If you do, present it.

Red:
I mean exactly what I wrote: they didn't eliminate every stinking possibility that exists.

Blue:
I was unequivocal in my depiction of NOAA's statements.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,200
Reaction score
61,448
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?



  • [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.

    [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

    [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)

I don't get into environmental debates because for Conservatives the issue has entered into the religion/culture-war arena, which means changing minds is officially impossible.

If you want the Untied States to take an environmental policy that addresses global warming, then the only thing for it is voting out Republicans. You'd have better luck convincing them to support forced abortions and the superiority of Islam.
 

JustHanging

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
17,236
Reaction score
7,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?

You don't seem to have a good understanding of science. For future reference: Science never deals in absolutes. At no point did Xelor say or indicate that there was no possiblity, ever.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't get into environmental debates because for Conservatives the issue has entered into the religion/culture-war arena, which means changing minds is officially impossible.

If you want the Untied States to take an environmental policy that addresses global warming, then the only thing for it is voting out Republicans. You'd have better luck convincing them to support forced abortions and the superiority of Islam.

Red:
Well, let me be clear: I didn't create the thread with the aim of changing minds.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,200
Reaction score
61,448
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Red:
Well, let me be clear: I didn't create the thread with the aim of changing minds.

Well, your goal is realistic, then.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,706
Reaction score
7,734
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am pained to once again point out that no Federal Government Agency offers its assessments based on "Certainty". Though there are some businesses that use Certainty Based Scoring, there is no US Government agency that uses it. They all use Confidence Based Scoring. So the only scoring on assessment you will ever see out of a US Government Agency is Very High, High, Medium or Low Confidence. NOAA also uses Confidence Based Scoring. I went to the report itself to verify that they were both using Confidence Based Scoring and that the assessments were either described as with Very High or High Confidence. There are ten assessments in total. Seven of them were termed as with Very High Confidence and three in High Confidence.

These are also standard terms of use. So anybody that is interested can find out what those actually mean. You can even if you wish find out what Certainty Based Scoring looks like. Once you see that you won't have any trouble understanding why government agencies do not use it.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But you just admitted that NOAA is not eliminating every "stinking" possibility that exists. So either there IS another possibility, or there isn't. Which is it?



I'm not redefining anything. :shrug: Either your describing statement of what they said is "unequivocal" or it is "equivocal". If its unequivocal then other possibilities do not exist. If its equivocal then other possibilities do exist.

That is an inaccurate interpretation of OP's use of unequivocal.

They were unequivocal that there is no convincing evidence. That is absolutely true. This does not suggest further evidence cannot possibly be gathered, because that isn't how science works.
 
Top Bottom