Perhaps false hope is better than no hope.
False hope (delusion) with Trump or a perception of no hope (Reality) with out Trump.
False hope (delusion) with Trump or a perception of no hope (Reality) with out Trump.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
A question for the ages. Whoever figures out the answer will be the next POTUS. Because whatever it is - no matter what may be important to his followers - the Donald is screwing it up. They just don't know it yet.
Perhaps people simply can't handle the end times scenarios being played by science? Escaping into the surreal world of alt fact and post truth, Trump, to avoid making the hard sacrifices needed for their grandchildren to survive to adulthood?
Like there is some evidence he lasted longer than 30 days
Psst I'm betting at least 4 years
He might. In fact he might even be the last POTUS. Whether he allows funding for climate change or not is probably irrelevant.Like there is some evidence he lasted longer than 30 days
Psst I'm betting at least 4 years
What I best like was a very large slogan
I think read
What do we want? The Science of Truth
When do we want it? After peer review
Please correct me if I don't have it exact
A photo of the slogan would be most appreciated
I think most rational people believe that the human race can not change fast enough to avoid the end time environmental catastrophe that science is predicting.
Last edited:
This one?
https://dave.moskovitz.co.nz/2017/0...science-when-do-we-want-it-after-peer-review/
(He also likes Klezmer music - no sense holding that against him)
Src RE above post
Count me as 1 rational (I hope) person who thinks the human race will not be required to change
I was under the impression Science was about conducting REPEATABLE experiments before drawing conclusions
Since this senerio is impossible to conduct REPEATABLE experiments on
in my opinion the best way the global warming - which has morphed into - climate change - can be described as a consensus educated guess
Thank you very much
Made my day
I saw it briefly on a news tease
Had the phone camera ready
When the news came on it was not run
Thanks again
Not geology, astronomy, oceanography, much of biology and paleontology - or climatology.
I would contend all of those would be subject to rigorous testing
EXCEPT
climatology because in essence
global warming - which has morphed into - climate change
climatology is attempting to predict the future based on past observations
Not really sound Science
But not repeatable experimentation.
Not following your reasoning here. What does media terminology have to do with anything?
Uh, what? Are you claiming that scientific theory and discovery used to predict future events and results and consequences is therefore not sound?
If someone dates a rock at being of a certain age
REPEATABLE
As was explained in a article (sorry no ref) it appears global warming was failing as a model so the terminology changed to climate change to take advantage of storms and other such weather features
Yes
Science theories which can predict OUTCOMES based on observations
Then when the OUTCOMES can be OBSERVED
are sound
And REPEATABLE
Let me know when you OBSERVE climate change IN THE FUTURE
And how it might be REPEATED
Last edited:
uhm ...global warming is a cause and climate change is an outcome of the cause... uhm.. 'tis called cause and effect...I would contend all of those would be subject to rigorous testing
EXCEPT
climatology because in essence
global warming - which has morphed into - climate change
climatology is attempting to predict the future based on past observations
Not really sound Science
global warming hasn't morphed at all...
Still stand by my response to Randwolfs inquiry
Science is painting a very dim future and most people find the need to escape such a gloomy outlook...by 1] Debunking the science with out proper reason and 2] Relying on alternative facts, pseudo science and fake-truths etc...
Trump provides a false hope that allows people time to adapt to the reality of what is happening to their local climate. Unfortunately it means that they can not entertain attempts at rectifying the environmental problems with out also acknowledging that which they are desperate to deny.
Hence my opinion/statement:
"I think most rational people believe that the human race can not change fast enough to avoid the end time environmental catastrophe that science is predicting." therefore the strong desire to support a delusion (Trump's false hope) instead of a reality.
The support for Trump ( The Messiah, offering salvation) is irrational.
So basically Trump can do and say what he likes and his supporters will continue to offer their support because their fear obliges them to.
You do not even have to believe in climate change to handle the question in abstract.
Science is painting a very dim future and most people find the need to escape such a gloomy outlook...by 1] Debunking the science with out proper reason and 2] Relying on alternative facts, pseudo science and fake-truths etc...
Trump provides a false hope that allows people time to adapt to the reality of what is happening to their local climate. Unfortunately it means that they can not entertain attempts at rectifying the environmental problems with out also acknowledging that which they are desperate to deny.
Hence my opinion/statement:
"I think most rational people believe that the human race can not change fast enough to avoid the end time environmental catastrophe that science is predicting." therefore the strong desire to support a delusion (Trump's false hope) instead of a reality.
The support for Trump ( The Messiah, offering salvation) is irrational.
So basically Trump can do and say what he likes and his supporters will continue to offer their support because their fear obliges them to.
Last edited:
The RHETORIC has changed and as
I mentioned
global warming RHETORIC
morphed into
climate change RHETORIC
and
As was explained in a article (sorry no ref) it appears global warming was failing as a model so the terminology changed to climate change to take advantage of storms and other such weather features
And
Let me know when you
go to the future and
OBSERVE climate change
IN THE FUTURE
and on return let us all know how it might be
REPEATED
PS While you are in the future could you please take notes on how the natives are coping?
Thanks
Last edited:
If you had investigated, you would have quickly found (it's famous) that the terminology change was largely driven by Republican Party campaign spin - Frank Luntz, a marketing expert and one of the major advisors to Republican Party politicians, wrote a memo in 2003 advising all Republicans to stop using "global warming" and use "climate change" instead, and they took his advice. Here is what he wrote in 2003, preparing for the 2004 elections:
Frank is also the guy who got all the Republicans to say "death tax" instead of "estate tax", and make a lot of similar changes he had found suckered the ignorant hicks at the core of the Republican vote.Frank Luntz said:
The "climate change" recommendation does not follow the straight pattern common to these efforts, however: https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-political-rhetoric-around-climate-change-er-global-warming/
I'm fascinated. I'm getting apparently sincere posts, in a science forum, from somebody who thinks science becomes unsound when it is used to predict the future consequences of present trends, actions, and events.
There's a thread on this forum that is a discussion of Holocaust and similar denials, and one of my points there was the bizarre lengths to which deniers in this category of denial (absurd, because it features denial of a common reality) will go, to avoid giving up on their denial.
btw: going to the future is not all that rare - we have currently gone to the future the AGW crowd was forecasting fifteen or twenty years ago. So far they seem to have underestimated the rate of some of the changes they predicted. The Greenland and Arctic Ocean ice is melting a lot faster than they estimated it most likely would, for example, and the ocean is acidifying a bit faster, and the methane clathrate release is ahead of what they had hoped.
But to bring it around: Trump is making a point of reducing research funding for climate change, so you may get your sound science yet.
Last edited:
No... not at all...
the emphasis may have but global warming has always been and still is a big part of the climate change picture..
I think people such as yourself just get tired of it all and like to cut to the chase .. that being climate change regardless of causality.
It really doesn't matter what the cause is any more due to as I opinioned:
as climate change is pretty damn obvious there seems no point mentioning global warming as much because it doesn't matter what the cause is.. we humans are not able to adapt fast enough to prevent what ever it is that is a comin' sometime in the future....regardless of the rhetoric.
- Status