- 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?
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?
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.)
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.
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.
Well, of course, NOAA is not eliminating every stinking possibility that exists in the world and their report doesn't purport to do so.I said "no possibility". In other words any and all possibilities that would have been possible is not possible.
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?
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.
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.
Red: No.
Blue: That is not what equivocal/unequivocal means. You do not get to redefine "equivocal"/"unequivocal."
Not sure career government workers at NOAA can be categorized as "Trump Administration's own . . ."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.)
WTF? Do you have a case to make in refutation of NOAA's findings or don't you? If you do, present it.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.
“No convincing evidence” and “no possibility” are not the same thing.
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.)
So there is no possibility what so ever? That sure sounds like what they're saying. Do you agree with that Xelor?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?