5 ms·

See the starting point below. It will take you five minutes to do the calculations. Then you make up your mind if "politically correct" is an appropriate label.

DonHopkins 9y ago
Starting point? I though they were "simple calculations" that you had already easily performed and completely finished correctly, that anyone else should easily be able to do, which proved your point beyond a doubt. Why are you changing the goalposts? Take the five minutes and finish your own homework yourself instead of telling me to do it for you. "Politically Correct" describes the Trump Administration's politically motivated denial of science. "Scientifically Correct" describes the vast body of consistent peer reviewed evidence that you and the Trump Administration are denying, on which an overwhelming majority of scientists agree. The burden of proof and obligation to take at least five minutes citing evidence and crunching the numbers lies in your court, since you're the one calling everyone a liar then changing the goalposts. So start responding to people's questions and stop stonewalling and deflecting. The fact that you agree with Donald Trump and parrot his blustering insincere persuasion techniques instead of citing scientific evidence should be a clue that you're wrong. What else do you agree with him on? Do you also agree with Donald Trump that teaching evolution and allowing gay marriage is "political correctness", too? And what about all those women who accused him and Roy Moore of sexual assault, is each and every one of them a liar too, just like all of those scientists?
- oldandtired 9y ago
  The starting point is the figures given so for those who cannot or are not able to look up the figures for themselves can do the calculations. It appears that some people are incapable of doing even the easiest of searches for freely available information. IT is obvious that you are thinking that when someone supplies you with the starting point and then encourages you to take the next step that you consider that they are unable to do so themselves. "Politically correct" is no less a label to be applied to any of the political arena's (such as the Trump administration or the failed attempt by the Clinton Team) than it is to be applied to many areas in Science, Medicine and other supposedly logical disciplines. When dogma takes over and fights against systematic investigation of a subject then "political correctness" is on the march. If you fail to see this happening, mayhaps, you should do a systematic study of history with regards to science and technology. People are people and all of us have biases. It takes work to not allow those biases to get in the road of systematic investigation. If the Emperor's New Clothes are unseen then one has the opportunity to say such. In this particular case, the Emperor's New Clothes are the 1 to 10 metre ocean level rise scenarios. You have the opportunity to call me any thing you like. I don't agree with Mr Trump. The US had a choice between two disagreeable teams, Trump who is an Isolationist and Clinton who is a Globalist. Neither was going to be useful to the future of the US. The "burden of proof" lies with the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) community. Answering simple questions like "where the energy processes are" in a forthright manner instead of the essentially sensationalist manner that has been their habit for decades, would go a long way to be credible. If someone says to you that it is storming outside, do you just believe them or do you actually look outside and do your own investigation? I have given you the base information and if you cannot be proactive enough to spend five minutes doing your calculations then what expectation should I have of you actually spending five minutes looking at any detailed figures I give you? Since you bring up evolution, no I don't believe in the evolutionary theory (or theories) being promulgated. My reason is because I spent a lot of time reading the experimental evidence that was done and noting that the conclusions derived by those experimenters was different to the evidence that they found. Since, at that time, I was a believer in evolution, this made no sense to me and challenged me to look at it further. My considered opinion is that evolution as promulgated is dogma and has no basis in reality. I consider the various theories of evolution and the attendant alternatives in intelligent design to be philosophical and religious in nature and not science. It is unfortunate that all sorts of people engage in the sexual harassment and sexual domination of others. This is inappropriate at any time, no matter whether it is a man doing it to a woman or to another man or a woman doing it to a man or another woman. The interesting thing is that some of those victims will be liars and others will be deeply hurt victims. The question is determining the truth of the matter. However, that is a social matter that is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not climate science is full of dogma. Bringing up such is simply saying that you are so caught up in your dogma that you cannot afford to listen and discuss with someone else an idea that is opposed to your world view and that you are willing to attack the man instead of the statement. I have robust discussions with various people and those of us who partake are expected to defend our stand points, with the expectation that those disagreeing will also actively contribute. The emperor is naked and it is time for people to stand and say so.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > The starting point is the figures given so for those who cannot or are not able to look up the figures for themselves can do the calculations. It appears that some people are incapable of doing even the easiest of searches for freely available information. The figures given where? What's this energy equation or calculation you talk about as if it's common knowledge?
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      Several people asked him repeatedly to post his numbers and links to his sources, but he continues to stonewall and deflect. He can't answer those questions so he won't, which proves my point that he's not arguing in good faith. That's just how people who subscribe to conspiracy theories predictably behave.

DonHopkins 9y ago

Starting point? I though they were "simple calculations" that you had already easily performed and completely finished correctly, that anyone else should easily be able to do, which proved your point beyond a doubt. Why are you changing the goalposts? Take the five minutes and finish your own homework yourself instead of telling me to do it for you. "Politically Correct" describes the Trump Administration's politically motivated denial of science. "Scientifically Correct" describes the vast body of consistent peer reviewed evidence that you and the Trump Administration are denying, on which an overwhelming majority of scientists agree. The burden of proof and obligation to take at least five minutes citing evidence and crunching the numbers lies in your court, since you're the one calling everyone a liar then changing the goalposts. So start responding to people's questions and stop stonewalling and deflecting. The fact that you agree with Donald Trump and parrot his blustering insincere persuasion techniques instead of citing scientific evidence should be a clue that you're wrong. What else do you agree with him on? Do you also agree with Donald Trump that teaching evolution and allowing gay marriage is "political correctness", too? And what about all those women who accused him and Roy Moore of sexual assault, is each and every one of them a liar too, just like all of those scientists?

oldandtired 9y ago
The starting point is the figures given so for those who cannot or are not able to look up the figures for themselves can do the calculations. It appears that some people are incapable of doing even the easiest of searches for freely available information. IT is obvious that you are thinking that when someone supplies you with the starting point and then encourages you to take the next step that you consider that they are unable to do so themselves. "Politically correct" is no less a label to be applied to any of the political arena's (such as the Trump administration or the failed attempt by the Clinton Team) than it is to be applied to many areas in Science, Medicine and other supposedly logical disciplines. When dogma takes over and fights against systematic investigation of a subject then "political correctness" is on the march. If you fail to see this happening, mayhaps, you should do a systematic study of history with regards to science and technology. People are people and all of us have biases. It takes work to not allow those biases to get in the road of systematic investigation. If the Emperor's New Clothes are unseen then one has the opportunity to say such. In this particular case, the Emperor's New Clothes are the 1 to 10 metre ocean level rise scenarios. You have the opportunity to call me any thing you like. I don't agree with Mr Trump. The US had a choice between two disagreeable teams, Trump who is an Isolationist and Clinton who is a Globalist. Neither was going to be useful to the future of the US. The "burden of proof" lies with the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) community. Answering simple questions like "where the energy processes are" in a forthright manner instead of the essentially sensationalist manner that has been their habit for decades, would go a long way to be credible. If someone says to you that it is storming outside, do you just believe them or do you actually look outside and do your own investigation? I have given you the base information and if you cannot be proactive enough to spend five minutes doing your calculations then what expectation should I have of you actually spending five minutes looking at any detailed figures I give you? Since you bring up evolution, no I don't believe in the evolutionary theory (or theories) being promulgated. My reason is because I spent a lot of time reading the experimental evidence that was done and noting that the conclusions derived by those experimenters was different to the evidence that they found. Since, at that time, I was a believer in evolution, this made no sense to me and challenged me to look at it further. My considered opinion is that evolution as promulgated is dogma and has no basis in reality. I consider the various theories of evolution and the attendant alternatives in intelligent design to be philosophical and religious in nature and not science. It is unfortunate that all sorts of people engage in the sexual harassment and sexual domination of others. This is inappropriate at any time, no matter whether it is a man doing it to a woman or to another man or a woman doing it to a man or another woman. The interesting thing is that some of those victims will be liars and others will be deeply hurt victims. The question is determining the truth of the matter. However, that is a social matter that is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not climate science is full of dogma. Bringing up such is simply saying that you are so caught up in your dogma that you cannot afford to listen and discuss with someone else an idea that is opposed to your world view and that you are willing to attack the man instead of the statement. I have robust discussions with various people and those of us who partake are expected to defend our stand points, with the expectation that those disagreeing will also actively contribute. The emperor is naked and it is time for people to stand and say so.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > The starting point is the figures given so for those who cannot or are not able to look up the figures for themselves can do the calculations. It appears that some people are incapable of doing even the easiest of searches for freely available information. The figures given where? What's this energy equation or calculation you talk about as if it's common knowledge?
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    Several people asked him repeatedly to post his numbers and links to his sources, but he continues to stonewall and deflect. He can't answer those questions so he won't, which proves my point that he's not arguing in good faith. That's just how people who subscribe to conspiracy theories predictably behave.