So your solution is to trust news anchors with general studies degrees, if that, instead?BDKJMU wrote:And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.Ibanez wrote: Serious question - do you ever think for yourself or do you just trust that what Rush and Fox say are the truth? Educated scientist have more weight on this subject than you.
And you're solution is to undertake wackadoodle ideas at a ginourmous cost to our economy & way of life that will have little to no change on human caused global warming..Grizalltheway wrote:So your solution is to trust news anchors with general studies degrees, if that, instead?BDKJMU wrote: And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.
So, your solution is to denigrate the messenger because you don't like the info?Grizalltheway wrote:So your solution is to trust news anchors with general studies degrees, if that, instead?BDKJMU wrote: And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.
Yes, that’s exactly his solution.Baldy wrote:So, your solution is to denigrate the messenger because you don't like the info?Grizalltheway wrote: So your solution is to trust news anchors with general studies degrees, if that, instead?
That's the problem. I don't know how much of the responsibility goes to scientists and how much of it goes to other people trying to interpret what they say/write. But there's been projection of a air of certainty that has not been justified. I do think the basic point is correct. I think that the atmosphere is generally warmer now than it would be without human activity. But I think there has been a lack of discipline with respect to the level of certainty associated with that inference. And I think the ability to predict has been overstated. Also I think things really start to break down when one gets into predicting the net impact on civilization.BDKJMU wrote: And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.
You read that drivel and THAT is what you take away? Now THAT’S scary....kalm wrote:Environmental quality and climate change are and will become an increasingly important component of economics. If anything, they've been a neglected part of economic discussion for far too long.Ibanez wrote: Oh, really? I had no idea.
How does "New," answer my question, " How is wage stagnation and the gender pay gap related to climate change?"
The "New" part is another way of saying this isn't just an environmental plan. In fact, it would be irresponsible to remove proposals regarding environmental infrastructure investments and regulations from any discussion of economics.
Whether it's all or even partly wrong, a "Green" New Deal is an economic discussion to strengthen the middle class and standard of living for all Americans and protect against an extractionary economy that benefits less than it should. That's a discussion worth happening...
Yes...I’m sure you find that quite scary...AZGrizFan wrote:You read that drivel and THAT is what you take away? Now THAT’S scary....kalm wrote:
Environmental quality and climate change are and will become an increasingly important component of economics. If anything, they've been a neglected part of economic discussion for far too long.
The "New" part is another way of saying this isn't just an environmental plan. In fact, it would be irresponsible to remove proposals regarding environmental infrastructure investments and regulations from any discussion of economics.
Whether it's all or even partly wrong, a "Green" New Deal is an economic discussion to strengthen the middle class and standard of living for all Americans and protect against an extractionary economy that benefits less than it should. That's a discussion worth happening...
HEY JSO CHECK OUT WITH THIS POST BY MJmainejeff wrote:Bad ideas and little knowledge.....that reminds me of someone in a much more powerful position.
Pelosi already denied her a spot on the climate change commissionAZGrizFan wrote:Difference is: HIS position has term limits. We're probably stuck with her until she's 90.mainejeff wrote:Bad ideas and little knowledge.....that reminds me of someone in a much more powerful position.
Quit pussyfooting around, John. Give us some algorithms.JohnStOnge wrote:That's the problem. I don't know how much of the responsibility goes to scientists and how much of it goes to other people trying to interpret what they say/write. But there's been projection of a air of certainty that has not been justified. I do think the basic point is correct. I think that the atmosphere is generally warmer now than it would be without human activity. But I think there has been a lack of discipline with respect to the level of certainty associated with that inference. And I think the ability to predict has been overstated. Also I think things really start to break down when one gets into predicting the net impact on civilization.BDKJMU wrote: And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.
So they leave themselves open to the "cry wolf" syndrome. Then if there really is a wolf at some point we're all screwed.
Come on man, you’re smarter than that. That “resolution” goes SOOOOOO far beyond an “economic” discussion as to be almost comical. She attempts to lay out a plan to accomplish a) solving world hunger b) global warming c) wealth redistribution, d) reparations to all those wronged e) affordable housing f) 100% green energy f) net zero carbon footprint, g) empowering unions, women, indigenous peoples, and any other “wronged” group h) prohibition of carbon-based fuels and i) promoting a living wage....just to name a few things.kalm wrote:Yes...I’m sure you find that quite scary...AZGrizFan wrote:
You read that drivel and THAT is what you take away? Now THAT’S scary....
and confusing.
The title of the “New Green Deal” should actually be called “Killing Capitalism”AZGrizFan wrote:Come on man, you’re smarter than that. That “resolution” goes SOOOOOO far beyond an “economic” discussion as to be almost comical. She attempts to lay out a plan to accomplish a) solving world hunger b) global warming c) wealth redistribution, d) reparations to all those wronged e) affordable housing f) 100% green energy f) net zero carbon footprint, g) empowering unions, women, indigenous peoples, and any other “wronged” group h) prohibition of carbon-based fuels and i) promoting a living wage....just to name a few things.kalm wrote:
Yes...I’m sure you find that quite scary...
and confusing.
No algorithms needed. Just a principle: Cause and effect inference requires controlled experimentation. The climate thing is a situation in which controlled experimentation for cause and effect is not possible and there is a need to respect that. Be mindful of what the situation is. Stop making highly confident "this is the way it is" cause and effect statements when the situation is such that there are limits to how high the confidence can be.Ivytalk wrote:Quit pussyfooting around, John. Give us some algorithms.JohnStOnge wrote:
That's the problem. I don't know how much of the responsibility goes to scientists and how much of it goes to other people trying to interpret what they say/write. But there's been projection of a air of certainty that has not been justified. I do think the basic point is correct. I think that the atmosphere is generally warmer now than it would be without human activity. But I think there has been a lack of discipline with respect to the level of certainty associated with that inference. And I think the ability to predict has been overstated. Also I think things really start to break down when one gets into predicting the net impact on civilization.
So they leave themselves open to the "cry wolf" syndrome. Then if there really is a wolf at some point we're all screwed.
They are predictions. What do you expect? Expect a prediction to be wrong, worst or better than prediction.BDKJMU wrote:And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.Ibanez wrote: Serious question - do you ever think for yourself or do you just trust that what Rush and Fox say are the truth? Educated scientist have more weight on this subject than you.
You do the same thing, Sir Baldy with any Democrat.Baldy wrote:So, your solution is to denigrate the messenger because you don't like the info?Grizalltheway wrote: So your solution is to trust news anchors with general studies degrees, if that, instead?
This. She's a flash in the pan.CID1990 wrote:Pelosi already denied her a spot on the climate change commissionAZGrizFan wrote:
Difference is: HIS position has term limits. We're probably stuck with her until she's 90.
This cute little dancer is going to get primaried by a hand picked candidate with LOTS of Dem funding if she doesn’t tone things down
Like I said in the OP: an amalgamation of every socialist wet dream over the past 25+ years compiled into one 12 page document.CID1990 wrote:The title of the “New Green Deal” should actually be called “Killing Capitalism”AZGrizFan wrote:
Come on man, you’re smarter than that. That “resolution” goes SOOOOOO far beyond an “economic” discussion as to be almost comical. She attempts to lay out a plan to accomplish a) solving world hunger b) global warming c) wealth redistribution, d) reparations to all those wronged e) affordable housing f) 100% green energy f) net zero carbon footprint, g) empowering unions, women, indigenous peoples, and any other “wronged” group h) prohibition of carbon-based fuels and i) promoting a living wage....just to name a few things.
The whole thing is an across the board attack on the free market
The shiv sticking out of Alexandra’s back in a few years is going to have a donkey on it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to HD and GATW she’ll be president in 8 years...Ibanez wrote:This. She's a flash in the pan.CID1990 wrote:
Pelosi already denied her a spot on the climate change commission
This cute little dancer is going to get primaried by a hand picked candidate with LOTS of Dem funding if she doesn’t tone things down
Here's the difference: I can make a confident prediction if I can do controlled experiments where I make the prediction that under certain conditions this will happen and it always does. Like I can say if I put water in my freezer at 0 degrees F overnight it'll be ice 8 hours later when I wake up. I can do it over and over again and verify that it will happen. Every tie. So when I predict that the water I put in my freezer will be ice the next morning I'm completely confident it'll happen unless the power goes off or something.Ibanez wrote:They are predictions. What do you expect? Expect a prediction to be wrong, worst or better than prediction.BDKJMU wrote: And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.
Perhaps you don't understand what a prediction is.
I understand perfectly well what predictions are.Ibanez wrote:They are predictions. What do you expect? Expect a prediction to be wrong, worst or better than prediction.BDKJMU wrote: And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.
Perhaps you don't understand what a prediction is.
And some predictions I give slim to no chance of coming true.Then you shouldn't have any problem finding plenty of examples...Ibanez wrote:You do the same thing, Sir Baldy with any Democrat.Baldy wrote: So, your solution is to denigrate the messenger because you don't like the info?
I didn't say that. Exactly the opposite, actually. Zero chance.AZGrizFan wrote:According to HD and GATW she’ll be president in 8 years...Ibanez wrote: This. She's a flash in the pan.
They might also ask them why her staffers are lying about the “unwilling to work” part of the New Green Deal or Green New Deal or whatever they call it... which was clearly on her website until it was removed after the jokes it inspiredHI54UNI wrote:If we had any decent journalists they would ask the co-sponsors of this resolution and all the presidential wannabes that have endorsed it why they are traveling by airplane. Shouldn't they be leading by example?
