• 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 ....

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.

Brown: I never said I had a problem with the NOAA's statements. ;)

Green: No, that isn't what you said or implied. You said that the NOAA's statements were unequivocal. By you saying that they were unequivocal you were saying that they were saying that there is no other possibility period. You even used the word "zero" in one of your posts. Science does not deal in "zero" or "unequivocal". They do not deal in absolutes. Both of those words that you used are absolutes in the world of science.

You see, my posts here actually had nothing to do with the NOAA. They were directed at your word choice to call their statement "unequivocal". Their word choice was actually perfect. Your's...not so much. ;)
 
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.

Well, at least someone got what I was getting at. Even if they disagree with me. :)
 
Well, at least someone got what I was getting at. Even if they disagree with me. :)

People were confused because your interpretation is stupid.
 
People were confused because your interpretation is stupid.

:shrug: That is your opinion. :shrug: But if I saw it that way...what do you think people opposed to the NOAA are going to take it as? Words matter.
 
Brown: I never said I had a problem with the NOAA's statements. ;)

Green: No, that isn't what you said or implied. You said that the NOAA's statements were unequivocal. By you saying that they were unequivocal you were saying that they were saying that there is no other possibility period. You even used the word "zero" in one of your posts. Science does not deal in "zero" or "unequivocal". They do not deal in absolutes. Both of those words that you used are absolutes in the world of science.

You see, my posts here actually had nothing to do with the NOAA. They were directed at your word choice to call their statement "unequivocal". Their word choice was actually perfect. Your's...not so much. ;)

Red:
You just keep thinking that....
 
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.
Red:
TY
 
:shrug: That is your opinion. :shrug: But if I saw it that way...what do you think people opposed to the NOAA are going to take it as? Words matter.

If I say "I'm not a cat person" and people interpret it as "death to all cats," that's their ****in problem and I'm really not interested in their opinion.
 
If I say "I'm not a cat person" and people interpret it as "death to all cats," that's their ****in problem and I'm really not interested in their opinion.

Talk about an apples and oranges comparison! Think you just won the award for not getting what analogies are about!
 
I guess I am just left to make one point. Based on recent experience and all the evidence, anybody that still thinks we should simply continue to stand around with our hands in our pockets continuing to pump more garbage into the atmosphere unabated thus continuing to sow the seeds of our own destruction unequivocally needs his head examined.

Of course the Donald is hoping nobody sees this additional research finding which is why it was released the day after Thanksgiving, otherwise known as Black Friday. Perhaps in a weird twist of irony Donald the consummate Dollars and Cents Transaction based politician will have left in his wake a new and unintended meaning for Black Friday.
 
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.)

Can anyone link me to a Fox News article on the subject. I wanted to get there side of the story about the Climate change report, but could not find one. If you can; please post a link?
 
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.

Ah, but they said there is no evidence of any explanations outside of the ones they have given. Do you have any such evidence? No, I think not. Anyone can just say there is a possibility of anything happening, but if there is no evidence of "anything" happening, then we go with the answer where we have evidence. And the evidence we have says man is causing a great deal of the climate change.
 
We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.

How can you find convincing evidence, if you never look for it?
 
Can anyone link me to a Fox News article on the subject. I wanted to get there side of the story about the Climate change report, but could not find one. If you can; please post a link?

Are you being serious or sardonic with your request above?....I'm hoping the latter.
 
I guess I am just left to make one point. Based on recent experience and all the evidence, anybody that still thinks we should simply continue to stand around with our hands in our pockets continuing to pump more garbage into the atmosphere unabated thus continuing to sow the seeds of our own destruction unequivocally needs his head examined.

Of course the Donald is hoping nobody sees this additional research finding which is why it was released the day after Thanksgiving, otherwise known as Black Friday. Perhaps in a weird twist of irony Donald the consummate Dollars and Cents Transaction based politician will have left in his wake a new and unintended meaning for Black Friday.

If the activities of 7 billion people is warming the Earths climate then there is nothing we can do to stop it. So rather than dream up ways to control human behavior, drop your despotic tendencies and put on some sun screen.
 
If the activities of 7 billion people is warming the Earths climate then there is nothing we can do to stop it. So rather than dream up ways to control human behavior, drop your despotic tendencies and put on some sun screen.

Um decreasing fossil fuel use is how to curb it,which can be done.Nothing despotic about not being careless with our environment.
 
If the activities of 7 billion people is warming the Earths climate then there is nothing we can do to stop it. So rather than dream up ways to control human behavior, drop your despotic tendencies and put on some sun screen.

Sunscreen is not going to help me much while drowning, trying to rebuild my flooded out house or escaping from a wildfire as I burn to a crisp. But thanks for playing.
 
all i can say is be prepared

unfortunately the deniers seem to be able to control the agenda

big money always gets their way.
 
all i can say is be prepared

unfortunately the deniers seem to be able to control the agenda

big money always gets their way.

The usual arguments already coming out:
- it is not 100% certain evidence of human induced Climate Change
that followed by the equally absurd and entirely contrary:
- Its already too late to do anything so we should just keep right on doing what we are doing until we croak

That said the Right and power money have really put themselves out there on this one. They care about nobody...including their own kids. Makes me wonder if many of them have been throwing their newborns off cliffs just not to have even a wisp of a care for anything but themselves.
 
Can anyone link me to a Fox News article on the subject. I wanted to get there side of the story about the Climate change report, but could not find one. If you can; please post a link?

I'm not really sure why you would want a journalist's take on science. If I want medical advice I go to a doctor. If I want to rewire my home I go to an electrician.
 
If the activities of 7 billion people is warming the Earths climate then there is nothing we can do to stop it. So rather than dream up ways to control human behavior, drop your despotic tendencies and put on some sun screen.

It's not impossible to reduce CO2 emissions per capita.
 
Sunscreen is not going to help me much while drowning, trying to rebuild my flooded out house or escaping from a wildfire as I burn to a crisp. But thanks for playing.

Ah, the politics of fear. Thank you for playing.
 
It's not impossible to reduce CO2 emissions per capita.

Reducing emission is possible, but that merely slows the rate of climate change on the margins. It does not stop it or reverse the trend
 
After reading the Trump Administration's latest report (linked in the OP), I am reminded of this: Donald Trump might be the dimmest President the US has ever had. (Just watch the video....you don't have to read the article)

Can you explain why a warming globe is a bad thing? And why our current global temperature is the optimum? The globe has been hotter than it is now and the globe has been colder than it is now. Why should I believe that our current temp is the 'perfect' temp that we dare not change by a degree or two?
 
Back
Top Bottom