All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[pErvinalia]

Cunt wrote:

And because I don't support some vague tax change, you would call me a denialist.

I accept that climate is changing, and that scientists are shit at predicting weather.

I accept that humans contribute to climate change with their activities and that politicians endlessly leverage issues like this one to push other agendas.

You go ahead and accept what you think is worth accepting, but if you want me to accept it, your going to have to stop pretending to be the moral majority.

I think you misunderstand me, possibly wilfully.

I castigated you for making incorrect statements on the basic science and energy usage patterns. When dealing with the factual science stuff, you need to know what you are talking about.

However, I make no claim to having the one, correct political solution to work effectively against climate change. There are a range of potential actions that will potentially help, both technological and economic. The choice we make is a political debate, that ought to involve widespread conversations from people all over the world. The only true necessity is that those conversations need to be backed up by facts, and evidence-based science.

I didn't make a claim that the most energy was used by aviation. The claim I made was that this use was my experience with 'biggest use'.

I haven't worked in power generation, so don't have a 'feel' for how much they use. I try to connect things with my experience. It's why, rather than just saying 'all climate scientists agree', like some kind of chorus-girl, I go spend time with life-long field geologists, policy-makers and government officiels. I try to understand what I can, and what is connected to me.

Some of the 'green push' is hilariously bad, to me, where someone living in a city with support would see it as automatic.

Being on a 'frontier' really reveals some of the idiocy around these debates. While people argue the pipeline, I see endless trucks spilling all over the highways and remember the 'bigger picture' usually shits on the frontiers.

You see my opposition as some kind of denialism, but you probably can't imagine what it means for the power plant to fail while you are visiting a tiny, remote community as a stranger. It gives a different perspective, especially if you start liking some individual humans in that place.

When you take a shot at me for being in a different position than you on some of these issues, you might want to remember that I might be motivated to protect people you haven't even considered. We can get very different answers depending on whether you want to protect the population of Tulita (500 or so) or if the population of Adelaide has more of your protective instincts. It probably makes sense to value the concerns of Adelaide a hundred times more that the concerns of Tulita, but there I am.

Ridiculous.

But it's just one reason we might have different perspectives. If you ever wanted to change my mind about something, you would probably have to understand my motivations and understanding of the issue.

But if you just want to show off how much smarter you are, I understand, and have at it.

The point is that personal anecdote doesn't cut it against actual hard evidence.

[Seabass]

It's not my beloved Republican Party. Many of them have some odd beliefs. However, to sit there and pretend the Democrats don't deny science too, well, that's just stupid. They do. There are Democrat anti-vaxxers, Democrat anti-GMO-ers, and the like. Democrats show just swallow whatever nonsense claims are thrown their way because they sound good. Just look at all the bullshit sold in the social sciences. https://www.city-journal.org/html/real- ... 14782.html

Mister Whatabout strikes again.

Republicans are a great deal more likely to deny science than Democrats. It would be interesting, for example, to compare the percentage of global warming denialists among Republicans with the percentage of global warming denialists among Democrats, then do the same with people in each group who deny evolution.

It's been done and your hunch is correct. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to believe humans were created as is ~10,000 years ago by god. It's something like 60% of Republicans vs 38% Democrats. It's the same for climate change, I just checked Gallup and on the home page I saw that 18% of Republicans worry a great deal about climate change vs 66% of Democrats, and 69% of Republicans think the concern is exaggerated vs 4% of Democrats.

Yes yes yes. That's all well and good. But as long as there is one creationist, science denying Democrat then the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same and Hermit is a hypocrite for suggesting otherwise.

And besides, Republicans aren't really climate deniers—they're just not alarmists like the radical far-left Killary 'Benghazimails' Clinton. Republicans know how to keep things in perspective so they know that... dundundunnn... THE CARAVAN is a far greater existential threat than slightly toastier winters. I mean, wouldn't a tropical Canada be nice?

[Cunt]

The point is that personal anecdote doesn't cut it against actual hard evidence.

It does if the hard evidence is misrepresented, or p-hacking, or any of a dozen other things which might be problems.

Which claim do you want to make, pErvinalia? I might oppose you, if you stated a position.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not interested in debating your anecdotes. It's meaningless in the climate debate.

[Cunt]

I'm not interested in debating your anecdotes. It's meaningless in the climate debate.

Good I wasn't debating my anecdetes. Just sharing where my experience reached.

Like more useless anecdotes - I run with a permafrost researcher, who is near achieving his pHd. I have asked him if he can set up a 'lab' around some of the City leaks, which are close to what he researches, out in the field. This isn't just to 'play', but also could give me valuable experience actually performing the 'science' at the ground level.

Probably more useless 'anecdotes' to you, but to me, a valuable insight into what those dry, boring papers really means. Last time I went, I was high as balls, and described an ice-hole interferometer which could make it twice as easy to measure flow in a sub-ice flowing creek.

Or it is just high blather. Thing is, it might not be one day. This is a guy who really has to figure out how to do real stuff, since that 'real stuff' is what supplies the data the rest of you brag about knowing.

[Brian Peacock]

Who's bragging? Citation required I think.

[Cunt]

Who's bragging? Citation required I think.

Any citation you have provided will do nicely, and thanks for popping by to help out.

[Tero]

Nancy bad. Shithole people bad. Murderers! Drugs! Wall good!

[Seabass]

We just watched Sicario 2. My god, Rachel Maddow was right. The President of the United States of America is confusing action movies with real life.

This man really needs to be removed from office...

[Hermit]

It's not my beloved Republican Party. Many of them have some odd beliefs. However, to sit there and pretend the Democrats don't deny science too, well, that's just stupid. They do. There are Democrat anti-vaxxers, Democrat anti-GMO-ers, and the like. Democrats show just swallow whatever nonsense claims are thrown their way because they sound good. Just look at all the bullshit sold in the social sciences. https://www.city-journal.org/html/real- ... 14782.html

Mister Whatabout strikes again.

Republicans are a great deal more likely to deny science than Democrats. It would be interesting, for example, to compare the percentage of global warming denialists among Republicans with the percentage of global warming denialists among Democrats, then do the same with people in each group who deny evolution.

It's been done and your hunch is correct. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to believe humans were created as is ~10,000 years ago by god. It's something like 60% of Republicans vs 38% Democrats. It's the same for climate change, I just checked Gallup and on the home page I saw that 18% of Republicans worry a great deal about climate change vs 66% of Democrats, and 69% of Republicans think the concern is exaggerated vs 4% of Democrats.

Yes yes yes. That's all well and good. But as long as there is one creationist, science denying Democrat then the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same and Hermit is a hypocrite for suggesting otherwise.

Damn! The most recent poll on creationism I could find at this stage was, conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2013. It shows that there's more than one Democrat voter. I am well and truly proven to be a hypocrite.

From the survey:

Humans have existed in present form
Republican 48%
Democrat 27%

A Yale University survey, published in May 2018, has found a similar discrepancy in respect of global warming. Looks like the more conservative you are, the less likely you are inclined to accept the millions of scientific measurements recorded by climate scientists.

Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes

• Most registered voters (73%) think global warming is happening, including 95% of liberal Democrats, 88% of moderate/conservative Democrats and 68% of liberal/moderate Republicans, but only 40% of conservative Republicans.

• A majority of registered voters (59%) think global warming is caused mostly by human activities, including 84% of liberal Democrats, 70% of moderate/conservative Democrats, and 55% of liberal/moderate Republicans (14 percentage points higher than in October 2017), but only 26% of conservative Republicans.

• A majority of registered voters (63%) are worried about global warming, including 88% of liberal Democrats, 76% of moderate/conservative Democrats, and 58% of liberal/moderate Republicans, but only 30% of conservative Republicans. Worry about global warming has increased among liberal/moderate Republicans by 15 percentage points since May 2017 and by seven points among conservative Republicans since October 2017.

Turning to vaccination now, a December 2016 Yougov survey asked: "Vaccines have been shown to cause autism." 18% of Clinton voters replied in the affirmative, as did 31% of trump voters.

Coito Two is correct in saying "to sit there and pretend the Democrats don't deny science too, well, that's just stupid", but firstly, that comment is about as strawmannish as an argument can get. Has anyone on this forum claimed that no Democrat denies science, or provided a link that makes that claim? Secondly, it is a pretty lame attempt to hide the fact that on average Republican voters are significantly more likely to reject science than Democrat voters.

[Brian Peacock]

Damn you and your so-called facts One can only image the amount of liberal bias those pollsters are bringing to the table. I spit on the Pew Research Center and their Mexican-loving #FAKEPOLLS!

[Brian Peacock]

Who's bragging? Citation required I think.

Any citation you have provided will do nicely, and thanks for popping by to help out.

Hmm. What citations are you looking for exactly, regarding what matters exactly? You made a claim that others, those who weren't disputing global warming or the science behind it, were bragging. Who was bragging? Where, when? Personally, I think you've just concocted a comforting story - just trying to make yourself feel better by implying that people who don't dispute the science are only really interested in showing off how clever they are and how ignorant and stupid everyone else is. I guess the question is, why place yourself in that ignorant camp simply to score a few feel-good points over others.

Your other point, that people cannot possibly be informed about, or at least are not entitled to an opinion on, global warming and climate science unless they're a scientist, ideally ones working in the field like your jogging friend, is totally bogus. The setting of such arbitrary conditions is fallacious - exactly the same as saying you're not entitled to an opinion on religion unless you're an expert theologian, or that without a doctorate in particle physics you have no business warming your cocoa in a microwave oven.

[Tero]

It’s the same reaction he gives when I accuse white trash voting for Trump as being dimwitted.

[Cunt]

Who's bragging? Citation required I think.

Any citation you have provided will do nicely, and thanks for popping by to help out.

Hmm. What citations are you looking for exactly, regarding what matters exactly? You made a claim that others, those who weren't disputing global warming or the science behind it, were bragging. Who was bragging? Where, when? Personally, I think you've just concocted a comforting story - just trying to make yourself feel better by implying that people who don't dispute the science are only really interested in showing off how clever they are and how ignorant and stupid everyone else is. I guess the question is, why place yourself in that ignorant camp simply to score a few feel-good points over others.

Your other point, that people cannot possibly be informed about, or at least are not entitled to an opinion on, global warming and climate science unless they're a scientist, ideally ones working in the field like your jogging friend, is totally bogus. The setting of such arbitrary conditions is fallacious - exactly the same as saying you're not entitled to an opinion on religion unless you're an expert theologian, or that without a doctorate in particle physics you have no business warming your cocoa in a microwave oven.

Anyone who cited a paper about global warming was bragging about knowing about global warming.

As to who can have an opinion, I don't know. I clearly can't. You will want to check with JimC before you espouse one. I don't know if you are allowed either.

You have found clearly that republicans are more likely to believe in woo than democrats. Will you do the same for women vs men? Blacks vs whites?

Dividing people up into camps seems fun enough for you, will you continue this identity bullshit further? Or are there only certain group identities which you feel confident examining?

[Tero]

Trump bragging about his big brain again.