All Things Environment

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not sure this qualifies as _sloppy_ but any scientist whose chief means of communicating contrarian science knowledge is his own blog is trying to circumvent the system of publication through the reviews of your peers.

Scientists' worth is not determined by whether they have a large public blog following. Do they publish regularly in highly respectable journals? Do they get significant funding to do their work from the normal sources of such funding? Are they highly regarded by their peers? Are they in demand to speak at scientific meetings in their field as featured keynoters?

But he was on FoxNews!

[MDlaxfan76]

I really, really don't want to go down this rathole with you again, cradle.

We don't actually know one another, but I like our exchanges once you've had your second cup of coffee, had your meds, done your meditation or whatever it is that gets you in a pleasant frame of mind.

Re Spencer, that's the biggest complaint the vast majority of other scientists in the climate field have about his work. Sloppy being a nicer way of saying that he presents conclusions based on data and processes not replicable. A harsher view, held by some, is that he manipulates data, cherry picks data, for a pure agenda purpose. Not that he isn't smart, not that he hasn't put lots of effort into making his arguments, just that he's either sloppy or dishonest. Pick one.

(Note that such can also be found in other scientists, including some on the other side of 'debate' on climate)

I and others have shared with you those complaints that are most easily found thru a simple google search of such. I'm not doing so again, you can do your own looking.

My sense is that you have a semi-religious sort of view of this subject and Spencer is the leading, seemingly credible scientific proponent supporting your field of view, your desired conclusion.

I WISH he were right, I'm just not willing to find him or his processes credible.

If I'm going to listen to scientists, I need to know that they have actually followed processes and data transparently and that such is replicable. Blow that credibility and I'm moving on.

As I've said lots of times, I DO think there's lots of room for constructive discussion of trade-offs in how to best deal with climate change. That's the conversation which seems to me to be most interesting, not the rathole of Spencer.

[6ftstick]

If I'm going to listen to scientists, I need to know that they have actually followed processes and data transparently and that such is replicable. Blow that credibility and I'm moving on.

But they haven't.

All they have are MODELS.

And we just had an exposure to university MODELS in real time. Not spread over the next few decades. Wildly inaccurate.

[dislaxxic]

Remind me again, what is our current president's view of climate change? What's his plan??

..

[Cooter]

Remind me again, what is our current president's view of climate change? What's his plan??

..

I imagine that one should vote for the Green party if they really want to fight global warming. Unfortunately the Green party is a little too communist for me.

[MDlaxfan76]

If I'm going to listen to scientists, I need to know that they have actually followed processes and data transparently and that such is replicable. Blow that credibility and I'm moving on.

But they haven't.

All they have are MODELS.

And we just had an exposure to university MODELS in real time. Not spread over the next few decades. Wildly inaccurate.

Which model are you criticizing here, 6ft?

Washington State?
That's the one the White House was saying they were following early on (later moved to their own internal) and many of us have referred to since then.
It predicted the virus going to near zero incidence by August. That one?
Serious question, that's the one you're saying has been "wildly inaccurate" ?

[MDlaxfan76]

Remind me again, what is our current president's view of climate change? What's his plan??

..

I imagine that one should vote for the Green party if they really want to fight global warming. Unfortunately the Green party is a little too communist for me.

I haven't even bothered to look at the Greenies...they're irrelevant as a political lever.

Right now, a single issue voter on this topic (assuming agrees with scientific consensus) would have to vote with the Dems. You might support different people in the primaries than the more moderate candidate, but come general, no real choice as to which lever to pull.

Again, single issue voter.

Political donations, however, give such a voter an opportunity to express their passion, whether for those candidates in other jurisdictions who are most akin to their views or for PACs driving communications about that issue.

[Cooter]

Remind me again, what is our current president's view of climate change? What's his plan??

..

I imagine that one should vote for the Green party if they really want to fight global warming. Unfortunately the Green party is a little too communist for me.

I haven't even bothered to look at the Greenies...they're irrelevant as a political lever.

Right now, a single issue voter on this topic (assuming agrees with scientific consensus) would have to vote with the Dems. You might support different people in the primaries than the more moderate candidate, but come general, no real choice as to which lever to pull.

Again, single issue voter.

Political donations, however, give such a voter an opportunity to express their passion, whether for those candidates in other jurisdictions who are most akin to their views or for PACs driving communications about that issue.

No, the Dems are mostly just talk, but don't really do much. They're talking it up right now with the election coming up.

If you really want to fight against global warming you should vote for the Green party. Giving the Green party more votes would give them more influence. The Green party are essentially ultra liberals and are pro illegal immigration.

[MDlaxfan76]

Remind me again, what is our current president's view of climate change? What's his plan??

..

I imagine that one should vote for the Green party if they really want to fight global warming. Unfortunately the Green party is a little too communist for me.

I haven't even bothered to look at the Greenies...they're irrelevant as a political lever.

Right now, a single issue voter on this topic (assuming agrees with scientific consensus) would have to vote with the Dems. You might support different people in the primaries than the more moderate candidate, but come general, no real choice as to which lever to pull.

Again, single issue voter.

Political donations, however, give such a voter an opportunity to express their passion, whether for those candidates in other jurisdictions who are most akin to their views or for PACs driving communications about that issue.

No, the Dems are mostly just talk, but don't really do much. They're talking it up right now with the election coming up.

If you really want to fight against global warming you should vote for the Green party. Giving the Green party more votes would give them more influence. The Green party are essentially ultra liberals and are pro illegal immigration.

they will have zip influence in a two party duopoly. We're not a parliamentary system.

The Dems may frustratingly dawdle, but they won't actively make the situation worse.
The Trumpists will.

If you want to support the Dem folks who have the most influence nationally on this issue, over supporting those who are passive (or worse), go ahead and send them your $. AOC would be an easy choice, but there are lots of others.

Or send your $ to a PAC pushing these issues.

But a vote for a Green national candidate is a wasted vote at this point, or worse it's defacto vote for Trump.

[Cooter]

I ain't sending these guys any dollars.

Voting for the Green party would not be a defacto vote for Trump.

[dislaxxic]

Remind me again, what is our current president's view of climate change? What's his plan??

..

I imagine that one should vote for the Green party if they really want to fight global warming. Unfortunately the Green party is a little too communist for me.

You mean, in the sense of taking communal responsibility for the planet and its environment? Got it...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

I ain't sending these guys any dollars.

Voting for the Green party would not be a defacto vote for Trump.

Really?

If Trump is to be defeated, Biden needs all the votes he can get.

Of course, if you live in a state that is very safely in Biden's column, as I do, your vote one way or another doesn't matter significantly, beyond the national count.

I took that 'protest' attitude last time, and I understand someone doing so again, though I think the clarity is far greater this go round and my own 'protest' is to send the message that Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously...more vote differential the better. Here in Maryland, and nationally.

Now if one lives in a swing state, and there are apparently far more of these than usual right now, then a vote for a Green is effectively a vote not cast to defeat Trump. Good as a vote for Trump in that case.

Same for close calls in Senate and House.

If you are a single issue climate voter (I'm not), it's important to move both bodies to D in order to get the legislative direction you prefer.

[Peter Brown]

I ain't sending these guys any dollars.

Voting for the Green party would not be a defacto vote for Trump.

Really?

If Trump is to be defeated, Biden needs all the votes he can get.

Of course, if you live in a state that is very safely in Biden's column, as I do, your vote one way or another doesn't matter significantly, beyond the national count.

I took that 'protest' attitude last time, and I understand someone doing so again, though I think the clarity is far greater this go round and my own 'protest' is to send the message that Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously...more vote differential the better. Here in Maryland, and nationally.

Now if one lives in a swing state, and there are apparently far more of these than usual right now, then a vote for a Green is effectively a vote not cast to defeat Trump. Good as a vote for Trump in that case.

Same for close calls in Senate and House.

If you are a single issue climate voter (I'm not), it's important to move both bodies to D in order to get the legislative direction you prefer.

Well, the ‘Republican’ has spoken: vote for Democrats including dog catcher.

The nuance overwhelms; he’s a better fit with the DNC anyway.

Time to accost some diners.

[MDlaxfan76]

I ain't sending these guys any dollars.

Voting for the Green party would not be a defacto vote for Trump.

Really?

If Trump is to be defeated, Biden needs all the votes he can get.

Of course, if you live in a state that is very safely in Biden's column, as I do, your vote one way or another doesn't matter significantly, beyond the national count.

I took that 'protest' attitude last time, and I understand someone doing so again, though I think the clarity is far greater this go round and my own 'protest' is to send the message that Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously...more vote differential the better. Here in Maryland, and nationally.

Now if one lives in a swing state, and there are apparently far more of these than usual right now, then a vote for a Green is effectively a vote not cast to defeat Trump. Good as a vote for Trump in that case.

Same for close calls in Senate and House.

If you are a single issue climate voter (I'm not), it's important to move both bodies to D in order to get the legislative direction you prefer.

Well, the ‘Republican’ has spoken: vote for Democrats including dog catcher.

The nuance overwhelms; he’s a better fit with the DNC anyway.

Time to accost some diners.

Again, FU on the diners.

But yeah, Dump Trump.
End the American Carnage.

Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously and there needs to be a major reckoning within the GOP.

Until then, that's this voter's priority.

Want to actually deal with climate change rationally?
We need to be very careful about unintended consequences and actual conservative thinking has much to offer in that regard.

But the anti-science stupidity needs to be rejected.

[Peter Brown]

I ain't sending these guys any dollars.

Voting for the Green party would not be a defacto vote for Trump.

Really?

If Trump is to be defeated, Biden needs all the votes he can get.

Of course, if you live in a state that is very safely in Biden's column, as I do, your vote one way or another doesn't matter significantly, beyond the national count.

I took that 'protest' attitude last time, and I understand someone doing so again, though I think the clarity is far greater this go round and my own 'protest' is to send the message that Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously...more vote differential the better. Here in Maryland, and nationally.

Now if one lives in a swing state, and there are apparently far more of these than usual right now, then a vote for a Green is effectively a vote not cast to defeat Trump. Good as a vote for Trump in that case.

Same for close calls in Senate and House.

If you are a single issue climate voter (I'm not), it's important to move both bodies to D in order to get the legislative direction you prefer.

Well, the ‘Republican’ has spoken: vote for Democrats including dog catcher.

The nuance overwhelms; he’s a better fit with the DNC anyway.

Time to accost some diners.

Again, FU on the diners.

But yeah, Dump Trump.
End the American Carnage.

Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously and there needs to be a major reckoning within the GOP.

Until then, that's this voter's priority.

Want to actually deal with climate change rationally?
We need to be very careful about unintended consequences and actual conservative thinking has much to offer in that regard.

But the anti-science stupidity needs to be rejected.

Here’s who joe Biden is meeting with today:

ED20FC85-3FF8-4DD4-851C-71B083480DF6.jpeg (201.37 KiB) Viewed 543 times

Fanlax Dems must be very proud.

[Cooter]

A person who has become a single issue climate voter could have been planning to vote for Trump.

It would be more accurate, if a voter switches from the going senile Biden to the Green party, to say one less vote for Biden. While it doesn't make a difference in who wins, people do look at the percentages of votes gotten. For example, if the Green party got a higher percentage of votes it would indicate that there was more interest in stopping global warming.

[Peter Brown]

A person who has become a single issue climate voter could have been planning to vote for Trump.

It would be more accurate, if a voter switches from the going senile Biden to the Green party, to say one less vote for Biden. While it doesn't make a difference in who wins, people do look at the percentages of votes gotten. For example, if the Green party got a higher percentage of votes it would indicate that there was more interest in stopping global warming.

Anyone who tells someone else who to vote for would be the first guy to take away your right to vote. I don’t care if you vote for Daffy the Duck.

[MDlaxfan76]

I ain't sending these guys any dollars.

Voting for the Green party would not be a defacto vote for Trump.

Really?

If Trump is to be defeated, Biden needs all the votes he can get.

Of course, if you live in a state that is very safely in Biden's column, as I do, your vote one way or another doesn't matter significantly, beyond the national count.

I took that 'protest' attitude last time, and I understand someone doing so again, though I think the clarity is far greater this go round and my own 'protest' is to send the message that Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously...more vote differential the better. Here in Maryland, and nationally.

Now if one lives in a swing state, and there are apparently far more of these than usual right now, then a vote for a Green is effectively a vote not cast to defeat Trump. Good as a vote for Trump in that case.

Same for close calls in Senate and House.

If you are a single issue climate voter (I'm not), it's important to move both bodies to D in order to get the legislative direction you prefer.

Well, the ‘Republican’ has spoken: vote for Democrats including dog catcher.

The nuance overwhelms; he’s a better fit with the DNC anyway.

Time to accost some diners.

Again, FU on the diners.

But yeah, Dump Trump.
End the American Carnage.

Trumpism needs to lose ignominiously and there needs to be a major reckoning within the GOP.

Until then, that's this voter's priority.

Want to actually deal with climate change rationally?
We need to be very careful about unintended consequences and actual conservative thinking has much to offer in that regard.

But the anti-science stupidity needs to be rejected.

Here’s who joe Biden is meeting with today:


ED20FC85-3FF8-4DD4-851C-71B083480DF6.jpeg



Fanlax Dems must be very proud.

Gross, if true.
I'm only finding a couple of far right rags carrying this so far, so can't tell for sure if true.
But if true, it's gross.
Let's not kid ourselves there's definitely an anti-semitic strain out there in a portion of black community. It's vile.

[MDlaxfan76]

A person who has become a single issue climate voter could have been planning to vote for Trump.

It would be more accurate, if a voter switches from the going senile Biden to the Green party, to say one less vote for Biden. While it doesn't make a difference in who wins, people do look at the percentages of votes gotten. For example, if the Green party got a higher percentage of votes it would indicate that there was more interest in stopping global warming.

I'm fine with your argument that there are indeed pro carbon, single issue voters who would vote for Trump, just as I'd say that there are single issue climate change voters who will vote for Biden to defeat Trump.

You adding the words 'going senile' betrays you, but ok, you're perhaps never going to vote for the Dem candidate. Have you ever voted Dem for President? I haven't, this will be my first.

And I have no issue, if this is truly how you feel about your own vote, prioritizing sending a message about global warming rather than the ignominious defeat of Trump...if you are in a safe Biden state. You're in Maryland like me? Understood.

If not a safe state, I'd certainly push more strongly that defeating Trump is far more important to the global climate cause than seeing any sort of ultra Green message.

I'll continue to advocate that the ignominious defeat of Trumpism is the best course to rational progress on climate change measures. So, that's where my vote will go, though for far more than a single issue reason.

[cradleandshoot]

I really, really don't want to go down this rathole with you again, cradle.

We don't actually know one another, but I like our exchanges once you've had your second cup of coffee, had your meds, done your meditation or whatever it is that gets you in a pleasant frame of mind.

Re Spencer, that's the biggest complaint the vast majority of other scientists in the climate field have about his work. Sloppy being a nicer way of saying that he presents conclusions based on data and processes not replicable. A harsher view, held by some, is that he manipulates data, cherry picks data, for a pure agenda purpose. Not that he isn't smart, not that he hasn't put lots of effort into making his arguments, just that he's either sloppy or dishonest. Pick one.

(Note that such can also be found in other scientists, including some on the other side of 'debate' on climate)

I and others have shared with you those complaints that are most easily found thru a simple google search of such. I'm not doing so again, you can do your own looking.

My sense is that you have a semi-religious sort of view of this subject and Spencer is the leading, seemingly credible scientific proponent supporting your field of view, your desired conclusion.

I WISH he were right, I'm just not willing to find him or his processes credible.

If I'm going to listen to scientists, I need to know that they have actually followed processes and data transparently and that such is replicable. Blow that credibility and I'm moving on.

As I've said lots of times, I DO think there's lots of room for constructive discussion of trade-offs in how to best deal with climate change. That's the conversation which seems to me to be most interesting, not the rathole of Spencer.

Why was it yesterday you and your buddies used the same buzz phrase... " sloppy science"? I will debate you down any rathole you wish to venture. Dr Spencer knows more about the climate of this earth than you or anyone on this forum. When you can list your peer reviewed papers here I will be happy to pay attention to your sloppy science.