[snakeoil]

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017 ... ef=d-river" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

U.S. President Donald Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act on Tuesday (Dec 13), a bill that sets policy for the U.S. military for the coming fiscal year. Surprisingly, the bill contains a sizable discussion of climate change.

In the bill, current and former top U.S. military brass attest to the national security threat of a rapidly changing climate. By signing the bill, Trump also ordered a report on “vulnerabilities to military installations” that climate change could cause in the next 20 years.

The bill’s acknowledgement and anticipation of climate change as an urgent threat contrasts sharply the Trump administration’s past denial. The administration has scrubbed mentions of climate change from agency websites, blocked federal scientists from presenting research on the topic, and top Trump officials—like energy secretary Rick Perry and environment chief Scott Pruitt—have stated their denial of the mainstream scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet.

My, my, my Will wonders never cease

BTW. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... truck.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elon Musk unveils electric big-rig that can go 500 miles on a single charge while carrying 80,000lbs and will 'cost less than a diesel truck'

The Tesla Semi truck was unveiled Thursday night by Tesla CEO Elon Musk
Musk said trucks are Tesla's next effort to move economy away from fossil fuels
Truck can go up to 500 miles at maximum weight at highway speed, Musk said
Tesla Semi can go from 0 to 60mph in five seconds without cargo or reach 60mph in 20 seconds at maximum weight allowed on US highways of 80,000lbs
Analysts fear the truck will be an expensive distraction for Tesla, which is going through 'manufacturing hell' with the production of $35,000 Model 3 sedan


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z51L3bzFLb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[johnforbes]

The problem, of course, is that throughout history the scientific consensus has very often been wrong.

Were Darwin's views greeted with a chorus of praise or were they doubted and very controversial?

Was Lobachevsky instantly congratulated? Was Riemann? No, they were condemned as wrong by the Scientific Establishment, which thought it knew THE TRUTH.

Until 1900, the work of Mendel did not even appear in many parts of the civilized world, nor did the work of Freud or Max Planck.

So pretending that dumb Republicans had to be dragged toward THE TRUTH as seen by Left-leaning bright people is just wrong.

[Clownkicker]

The trouble is, johnny, in those days there WAS no scientific consensus against them. There was only church and state against them, just like today. You keep pretending that all these scientists were simply poo-pooed by some scientific community 40 years after they presented their work, but they weren't. That kind of skepticism only existed before the supporting data were collected. Then the scientific community developed consensus. The kind of inflexible, entrenched scientific community you are saying existed simply never existed, just as it doesn't exist today. You're making it up.


Climate change has been building a consensus for fifty years. The data have been collected and are now overwhelming. Anyone who can't see climate change coming is in fact a dumb Republican since there are no Democrats, dumb or otherwise, who deny it. When 97% of climate scientists agree, and only 2% remain undecided, that's about as sure as anything ever gets in science. And degrees of certainty is the truth that you are choosing to simply overlook.

“When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.”-Bertrand Russell

There is no longer any degree of uncertainty about climate change that is comparable to any of your examples when they were first introduced.

There are still many dumb Republicans who think the world is 5000 years old and that dinosaurs walked the Earth with homo sapiens. They are not to be taken seriously and they are not to be making scientific or educational policies in government. Your personal willful ignorance is not a pertinent scientific argument for not taking action, dummy.

[johnforbes]

Clown, you are completely wrong.

Don't take my word for it, but go read a good history of science for yourself.

Don't do that just in order to post comments on the Internet.

Read a history of science to repair the yawning gaps in your own education.

The simple truth is that the Scientific Establishment has been wrong very, very often, but the virtue of science is that it ultimately depends on data and so there is, in time, a "self-healing."

But there has been incident after incident of false certitude.

If Snakeoil and you had ever read a history of science, you'd know that already and stop this silly pretense that some current politician such as Obama or Hillary has ever even thought about false certitude.

And the points I'm making have NOTHING to do with politics.

Whenever some politician -- Left or Right or whatever -- tells you he has a favorite scientific theory he is pushing today, you should learn to be skeptical.

[RealJustme]

Climate change has been building a consensus for fifty years.

Even cave men knew there was climate changes, why the hell do you think all the dinosaurs were wiped out. If there had been a carbon tax on those damn cave men the climate would have never changed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

A responsible government would be looking at what we can do to survive future climate changes, not try and change the climate which is nothing but a money make scheme and transfer of wealth to poorer countries.

[Clownkicker]

As johnforbes can't actually produce any facts or evidence to support his view that I am "completely wrong" in anything I said, and he chooses to simply overlook the "degree of certainty" reality, he is totally barren and completely useless.

"The simple truth is that the Scientific Establishment has been wrong very, very often, but the virtue of science is that it ultimately depends on data and so there is, in time, a "self-healing.""-johnflubs

^^^^^^ johnforbes just upended his phony argument about 'prudent skepticism' by dumb Republicans in his previous post. Any significant disagreement among scientists in the past has always been the result of a paucity of data. As the data are now in on climate change, and the evidence is overwhelming in support of the theory, neither he nor the government has any excuse to ignore current scientific consensus concerning the need for taking action to mitigate the problem. :lol:

Way to go, johnny.
It's always hilarious when you undermine your own foolish arguments by accidentally stumbling over a bit of reality.

[snakeoil]

Tool, I can't believe you sometimes. The dinos were wiped out by a large asteroid or meteor. Massive fires started around the world and a huge percentage of the animal population was wiped out because of the greatly decreased food stocks caused by the dust, smoke and debris from the impact site.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I guess Noah saved the animals we have today. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[RealJustme]

In the late Mesozoic Era that corresponds with the extinction of the dinosaurs, evidence shows that the planet slowly became cooler. Lower temperatures caused ice to form over the North and South poles and the oceans to become colder. Because the dinosaurs were cold-blooded–meaning they obtained body heat from the sun and the air–they would not have been able to survive in significantly colder climates. Yet some species of cold-blooded animals, such as crocodiles, did manage to survive. Also, climate change would have taken tens of thousands of years, giving the dinosaurs sufficient time to adapt.

Now watch a libtard try and deny the Mesozoic Era ever occurred and that the planets' climate never changed until man generated carbon. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In fact the very ground you're currently standing on was probably at one time covered with glacier ice over 100 feet deep. That's real science dudes, not something Al Gore made up to transfer wealth.

[johnforbes]

Clown, you are completely wrong.

Stop a second and ponder whether holding Theory A will present a problem of false certitude and prevent a person from taking in any data contrary to the theory.

It will.

It does.

History proves that.

Perhaps this is too sophisticated an argument for Clown to absorb, but it is the truth.

If you believe in a Flat Earth theory, your epistemology will filter out all but data supporting that.

This is the very nature of false certitude, and it how the history of science unfolded.

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes is too dimwitted to understand that the very fact that scientific consensus has grown and changed over time proves that this supposed "false certitude" he's dreaming about never stopped scientists from "taking in any data contrary to the theory."

Obviously, it didn't or his science classes would have only reflected the ideas of the 18th century.
(Well, his probably did. That would explain his stubborn willful ignorance.)
But the truth is lots of people believed in Theory A and then changed their minds to adopt Theory B.

johnforbes, you are completely wrong.

[johnforbes]

No, Clown, you don't comprehend the point.

Eventually data wins, but century after century of ignorance can unfold before a dark age can end with a renaissance of knowledge.

Indeed, Clowntoker's own autobiography is entitled DECADE AFTER DECADE OF LEFT WING IGNORANCE.

[sillydaddy]

My concern is that the US will be pulled into joining climate change conferences that will
expect us to help the other members by financing the modernization of their failing industries..
who will then compete against the US.. :o

[Clownkicker]

To the contrary, I do comprehend your silly point, johnny.

As you said, eventually data wins, and the data are in on climate change and we are in more than just a renaissance of knowledge. We are in a knowledge boom. But you still insist on believing that it is wise for us to ignore climate science because at some time in the past cavemen didn't understand nature and alchemists thought they could turn lead into gold. That's just idiotic.

This is no longer the case for us. There has been a steadily building consensus on climate change for the past 50 years. The amount of data available far exceeds anything available to scientists at any time in the past.
If we can't be reasonably certain of the consensus now, then you might as well step off a cliff in an arrogant attempt to flout gravity because you aren't going to get any more certain of the consensus with another 50 years of data. And even if you would be more certain on your death bed, it would be too late to do anything about it.

There comes a point when we must simply take action based on the best information we have.
That time is now. All your hemming and hawing and whining about how you don't personally believe it is irrelevant.

As I said, the data are now in on climate change, and the evidence is overwhelming in support of the theory, neither you nor the government has any excuse to ignore current scientific consensus concerning the need for taking action to mitigate the problem.
Get out of the way and let the adults save your sorry ass, fer cripes sake.

[Intrepid]

I want to know what happened to the coming ice age that was hysterically predicted back in the 70s and should have killed us all by now.

None of you climate hysterics can explain why this event, that was predicted every bit as urgently as global warming is now, never happened or exactly when the big switch took place.

I suspect most of you weren't alive in the 70s, so anything that took place back then never really happened, as far as you are concerned.

The myth of global warming has nothing to do with climate. It's all an economic shakedown that makes any scam dreamed up by the Clinton outfit pale in comparison.

[Clownkicker]

Of course, this fabrication of your feeble, delusional mind has already been explained to you, dimwit.

There was NEVER a broad scientific consensus about global cooling. NEVER.
Much to Insipid's ignorant chagrin, Time Magazine is not a scientific peer reviewed journal.
There are no large number of scientific papers supporting the idiotic assertions of Insipid. If there were, he would produce them to support his bullshit. But he won't because he can't.

There were a few guys that popular magazines latched onto to get clowns like Insipid all riled up, and that's all.
They were always a fringe element, just as climate change deniers are a fringe element today.

[Intrepid]

And once again I must patiently explain to the simple minded child AssClown of how I personally watched an episode if NOVA, that PBS program narrated by Leonard Nimoy. In the most serious Mr. Spock tones he informed the good people who watch shows like that thst unless we did something RIGHT NOW, the entire North American continent as far south as Phoenix, AZ would be covered by a sheet of ice 11 feet thick.
Not 10 or 12 feet, 11 feet thick. How this odd number was arrived at was not explained. It was predicted that by the first part of the 21st century most life in North America would be ended, yet here I was, apparently still alive and well. A quick look out the window confirmed there were no glaciers apparent in the neighborhood.

I sat and watched rapt, because this blather was so at odds with the current blather about global warming.
Then it was revealed this was a rebroadcast of a program originally aired in the early 70s.

I'm sure someone at PBS received a massive ass chewing for letting that one out of the vault.

Global warming is an economic scam dreamed up to give control of our lives to the government, one of the main goals of the AssClown's masters in the People's Glorious Revolutionary Politboro. And they applaud the efforts of good Useful Idiots like you in furthering the revolution.

Forward!I'm

[johnforbes]

Clown has never read a history of science.

If you have a wrong theory, which has been the case for centuries at a time in history, it does affect how the scientific establishment takes in and processes new data.

Science has proceeded in fits and starts as repeated episodes of false certitude slowed down progress.

If Clown can't understand how true that is, he really should take the time to read a history of science.

[Intrepid]

Yeah, about that "Trump 'Concedds' Climate Change" stuff...

The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats. The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

MAGA snowflakes.

[Clownkicker]

Once again I must explain to the simple minded AssClown Insipid that he never saw such a show on NOVA. He made it up.

And to prove me wrong, all Insipid needs to do is link us to the episode of which he speaks.
The NOVA shows are available at PBS.org, so he should have no problem locating it for us. :lol:

But he won't because he can't. There was never a NOVA show in the 1970s about a 'coming ice age'.
Made up stupid shit is all conservatives have to support their delusions.

[Intrepid]

No, you're wrong again AssClown Marxist Tool.
I DID in fact see that on a PBS NOVA broadcast.
Why would I make up so much detail if I had not?

Oh, that's right, you are ASS-uming everyone is as demented and deranged, angry and filled with hate and venom as are you.

Now, spew some emoticons and go away.
But you won't because you are just like some split tail bitch who always has to have the last word.

Must have something to do with you being a homo I suppose.
Now have your say and make sure to check back every five minutes to see if I've responded.

And every time you do, it proves I own your crippled punk bitch ass.

[RealJustme]

No more diverting funds from the DOD or other federal agencies for the climate change gangsters. Trump is eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats, which results in billions in funds going back to national security threats still on the list.

[Clownkicker]

The AssClown Insipid is just too easy. There's nothing more reliable than his incredible ignorance. :lol:

"I DID in fact see that on a PBS NOVA broadcast.
Why would I make up so much detail if I had not?"-AssClownLiarInsipid

Obviously, you would "make up so much detail" in order to support your loud-mouthed partisan propaganda but you didn't think anyone would call you on it, dummy. As you well know, the secret to any good lie is in the details.
You and johnforbes simply spout long strings of blather with an arrogant authoritative air but can never produce a speck of evidence to back it up for some reason. I wonder why that is?

First of all, no, you DIDN'T see a NOVA program from the 70s about a coming ice age with Nimoy because Nimoy wasn't doing NOVA programs in the 70s, you imbecile. That is the first proof that you are simply making up stupid shit and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
If only there were some internet tool you could master to look up such information, you know, maybe some kind of algorithm that would sort through masses of information and give you the relevant sources of facts you're looking for.
Oh, never mind, you wouldn't know what to do with it if there were such a tool. You would only ridicule anyone who used it to avoid being stupid and ignorant like you.

Secondly, there was never a NOVA show about a coming ice age. You simply made it up. That's why you couldn't produce it, just as I said you wouldn't.
And they certainly didn't re-run such a nonexistent show as you claimed, because there is no such NOVA show to re-run.

What you are thinking of is a TV series called "In Search Of..." which delved into such things as "Extraterrestrials, Magic and Witchcraft, Missing Persons, Myths and Monsters, Lost Civilizations, Strange Phenomena" which Nimoy did in 1977. You know, what the dimwitted consider to be "science"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

"In Search Of..." was a sensationalistic collection of psuedoscience for the simple minded, astrology, conspiracy-theory-type people to allow them to believe they were educating themselves while consuming drivel and nonsense. It did not present peer reviewed science.
In other words, their target audience was YOU, dummy, and they obviously succeeded in a spectacular fashion in your case.

They even told you at the beginning of the program that the show presented "information based on theory and conjecture" and not facts, but that didn't stop you swilling it down as 'science' did it?

Turd Boy, you ought to know better by now that I can back up the things I post and you never can. Your mind consists of a bunch of mushy, unsupportable beliefs you unquestionably latched onto to make you feel better about a scary world and to help you feel superior to people you disagree with.
That's why the next time I want to know something about "Magic and Witchcraft" I'll be sure to come to you, AssClown Steppinfetchit Insipid.

But it was fun setting you up and then wiping your nose in your own shit once again, AssClown Insipid.
I know you love it, but there is no need to thank me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Intrepid]

Gotcha.

Round 1, me.

Hurry back.

[johnforbes]

Just to give one example, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged linear notions of progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science often occur outside of “normal science.”

Orthodox notions from the official Science Establishment of any era often prevent people from understanding new things.

But the very dumbest thing anybody can do is rely on some partisan politician to tell them what to think about science, which is what modern Democrats do.

[namngulfvet]

The only reason Clown thinks its real is Al Gorp told him it was.

[Clownkicker]

The only reason namandgulfdumbfuck thinks it isn't real is because he hates Al Gore.

That's just the kind of simpleton he is.

[Clownkicker]

AssClown Insipid is pretending he wasn't caught with his pants down again, so instead he's going with the story that he fooled me into rubbing his nose in his own shit and considers that a victory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But for him, it's the kind of humiliation he revels in, so it IS a victory from his perspective, I guess.
That's how much Insipid loves being my punk bitch urinal. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Intrepid]

Gotcha.

Round 2, me.

Hurry back.

[Clownkicker]

"Just to give one example, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged linear notions of progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science often occur outside of “normal science.”"-johnflubs

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "false certitude" does it, johnny?
Just because progress isn't smoothly linear does nothing to bolster your silly claim that it's some sort of "false certitude" that causes the gaps in "transformative ideas" showing up. You need some evidence, not pronouncements.

Nobody ever argued that transformative ideas don't show up sporadically. And it is exactly that fact the disproves your thesis. Because these transformative ideas do show up regardless of the degree of certitude surrounding any particular idea of any particular time.

Go back to school and get someone else to spoon feed you another idea you can regurgitate without any thinking being involved, johnny.
And try to make it current stuff. Continually arguing that churches and governments represent some sort of "scientific establishment" just doesn't fly.

[Intrepid]

Three of the last four posts are by the Loser Marxist AssClown.
He's obsessed! He's demented! He can't help himself!
He's so owned!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Look familiar punk?

I win!

[Clownkicker]

Two of the last three posts are from the AssClown Insipid.

He's a stupid fuck! He can't help himself! He's so owned!

He's my punk bitch urinal!

I win,Turd Boy! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnforbes]

Come on, Clown, you should know by now that I have nothing against religion (it is an organizing force in society), but have zero beliefs myself.

The entire history of science consists of episodes of false certitude.

It is in the nature of mankind to seek certitude -- to aspire to dominate with concepts the buzzing flux (vide William James) of reality.

It is unknown whether anthropogenic global warming is yet another vain attempt, but any reasonable person should be skeptical when a flabby politician such as Al Gore starts hawking a theory for money.