Newspeak

[kallend 1,679]

mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051 (And this is only up to 2010).

www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/breitbart/breitbart-gets-wrong-loretta-lynch-whitewater-clai/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

jakee

************So that's your way of saying "I'm sorry, I was completely wrong" is it? Charming

Hell no!

That's odd, since you seemed to concede that you were completely wrong.

You need the Evelyn Woodhead Speed Reading course

People in glass vocabularies shouldn't throw insults

So are you saying you were correct, and that UK politicians are planning to 'ban' climate change opponents?

Take the course

You need it

Oh, you might want to see if you can find a reference to this course

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

kallend

mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051 (And this is only up to 2010).

www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/breitbart/breitbart-gets-wrong-loretta-lynch-whitewater-clai/

Media matter and politifact?

Not worth opening the links

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

rushmc

***
mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051 (And this is only up to 2010).

www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/breitbart/breitbart-gets-wrong-loretta-lynch-whitewater-clai/

Media matter and politifact?

Not worth opening the links



Still weaseling, Marc.

Quoting Breitbart just diminishes your credibility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,280]

rushmc

***************So that's your way of saying "I'm sorry, I was completely wrong" is it? Charming

Hell no!

That's odd, since you seemed to concede that you were completely wrong.

You need the Evelyn Woodhead Speed Reading course

People in glass vocabularies shouldn't throw insults

So are you saying you were correct, and that UK politicians are planning to 'ban' climate change opponents?

Take the course

You need it

Oh, you might want to see if you can find a reference to this course

Oh Rush, you are too cute for words. It's actually quite amusing that you've taken the effort to make sure that post contained correct spelling and passable grammar (if not punctuation). Though it just highlights how lazy and feckless you usually are, doesn't it?

Back to topic though, are you now refusing to say whether you were right or wrong over your politician claim? Hoping that it can go unchallenged if you keep it in some kind of limbo?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,154]

This guy just throws all kidsn of stuff out, hoping something will stick.

He doesn't understand how ironic it is that he is doing so while ranting and raving about how unscientific the global warming issue is.

Half the time he has no clue what he is posting, evidenced by the amount of times the article actually says something completely different from what he thought it did.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

This guy just throws all kidsn of stuff out, hoping something will stick.

He doesn't understand how ironic it is that he is doing so while ranting and raving about how unscientific the global warming issue is.

Half the time he has no clue what he is posting, evidenced by the amount of times the article actually says something completely different from what he thought it did.

Irony is all over your post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

rushmc

***This guy just throws all kidsn of stuff out, hoping something will stick.

He doesn't understand how ironic it is that he is doing so while ranting and raving about how unscientific the global warming issue is.

Half the time he has no clue what he is posting, evidenced by the amount of times the article actually says something completely different from what he thought it did.

Irony is all over your post

Misunderstanding of the definition of "irony" is all over yours.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,154]

rushmc

***This guy just throws all kidsn of stuff out, hoping something will stick.

He doesn't understand how ironic it is that he is doing so while ranting and raving about how unscientific the global warming issue is.

Half the time he has no clue what he is posting, evidenced by the amount of times the article actually says something completely different from what he thought it did.

Irony is all over your post

Ah, the very well thought out "I know what you are, but what am I" defense.

[jakee 1,280]

rushmc

Irony is all over your post

So what were you, Rush? Right or wrong?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,475]

>Many of these you example here are taught as fact.

Yes, they are all taught as scientific fact. I listed four of them. Do you object to all of them being taught as fact? Or just the ones that conflict with your political ideology?

[billvon 2,475]

>Which definition of climate change should be taught? Climate change,
>the scientific definition, hasn't been denied.

Not by you. Several other people here have indeed objected to the scientific definition of AGW.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Many of these you example here are taught as fact.

Yes, they are all taught as scientific fact. I listed four of them. Do you object to all of them being taught as fact? Or just the ones that conflict with your political ideology?

I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact. Remember being taught that the Russians were going to nuke us? Remember being told about how bad eggs were? Just read an early edition of "A Brief History of Time" and see how much in there has been superseded or otherwise thrown out. "Hey. We've noticed that the measurements show the universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating." Not even considered a possibility back in 1990. Or look at the absolute lambasting that Warren and Marshall received from the medical community by suggesting that ulcers are caused by a bacteria. Nothing could survive in the acid environment, they all agreed as a consensus.

Science builds on itself and amasses further knowledge verifying the accuracy of the claims. Pseudoscience ignores contrary evidence and relies upon induction and hindsight to make links.

What is fact? Hypotheses aren't. Theories? Theories are pretty close. Laws of nature are even stronger. I think when discussing science it should be discussed as a process. I think that calling AGW a fact when discussing the scientific aspects is troubling. Because it is a theory, and a theory is an explanation, theories make falsifiable predictions. The more precise the prediction, the better.

A fact is objectively verifiable. Anything not objectively verifiable is not a fact.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,475]

>I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact.

Do you object to the theory of evolution being taught as fact? It hasn't been proven 100%.

> I think that calling AGW a fact when discussing the scientific aspects is troubling.

AGW is based on three facts.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Provable through simple experimentation.
2) We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Provable through direct measurement and math.
3) The climate is warming. Provable through actual measurement.

Based on facts 1) and 2) we expect the planet to warm. We in fact do see it warm (see 3.) That's what should be taught - facts.

[Driver1 0]

billvon

>I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact.

Do you object to the theory of evolution being taught as fact? It hasn't been proven 100%.

> I think that calling AGW a fact when discussing the scientific aspects is troubling.

AGW is based on three facts.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Provable through simple experimentation.
2) We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Provable through direct measurement and math.
3) The climate is warming. Provable through actual measurement.

Based on facts 1) and 2) we expect the planet to warm. We in fact do see it warm (see 3.) That's what should be taught - facts.

Don't worry. Mother nature will make it right with just the right sized meteorite impact smashing right into the middle east and setting off the next ice age.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact.

Do you object to the theory of evolution being taught as fact? It hasn't been proven 100%.

I think if we are interested in accuracy then theory might be better. I'm comfortable with calling it a fact.

Quote

> I think that calling AGW a fact when discussing the scientific aspects is troubling.

AGW is based on three facts.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Provable through simple experimentation.
2) We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Provable through direct measurement and math.
3) The climate is warming. Provable through actual measurement.

Based on facts 1) and 2) we expect the planet to warm. We in fact do see it warm (see 3.) That's what should be taught - facts.

We expect the planet to warm. It is a fact that we expect it. The planet will warm is a prediction. We expect it but don't know it.

The planet will warm. That is not a fact. It's a prediction that can be tested. The Universe will get gradually colder. That is a not a fact but is a law.

I think evolution is pretty well established as a theory. I think intelligent design is not a theory because it doesn't make predictions and isn't falsifiable.

Facts are falsifiable. Theories make predictions. Prediction: the ten years between 2096 and 2105 will be warmer than the ten year between 2026 and 2035. That is what we expect. Now we test it and observe and see what happens. By 2106 we'll know whether it is a fact or not

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact.

Do you object to the theory of evolution being taught as fact? It hasn't been proven 100%.

I could be wrong, but I don't see much meaningful practical application from a belief in evolution unless you're a biologist.

Biology isn't trying to take away my beloved charcoal grill...and that's all I'm pretty much worried about...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 2,475]

>I could be wrong, but I don't see much meaningful practical application from a
>belief in evolution unless you're a biologist.

Or a doctor, paleontologist or computer programmer. Or even a fisherman. (Some fish with catch size limits are rapidly evolving to be smaller.)

[lawrocket 3]

Coreeece

***>I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact.

Do you object to the theory of evolution being taught as fact? It hasn't been proven 100%.

I could be wrong, but I don't see much meaningful practical application from a belief in evolution unless you're a biologist.

Biology isn't trying to take away my beloved charcoal grill...and that's all I'm pretty much worried about...

I have kids who can tan even though I can't. Nice to know that evolution helped with that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,475]

>I think if we are interested in accuracy then theory might be better. I'm
>comfortable with calling it a fact.

OK. So it's a fact. Our observations of evolution, and application of our knowledge of evolution to how things will evolve in the future, can be taught. Great.

>We expect the planet to warm. It is a fact that we expect it. The planet
>will warm is a prediction. We expect it but don't know it.

Right. We can use our observations of climate change to better understand the world, and can apply our knowledge of climate change to how things will change in the future. Again, great.

>The planet will warm. That is not a fact. It's a prediction that can be tested.

Agreed. In that way it is very similar to evolution. Evolution could stop permanently tomorrow - but from our experience that is very, very unlikely.

[Coreeece 2]

lawrocket

******>I object to hypothesis being pit out as fact.

Do you object to the theory of evolution being taught as fact? It hasn't been proven 100%.

I could be wrong, but I don't see much meaningful practical application from a belief in evolution unless you're a biologist.

Biology isn't trying to take away my beloved charcoal grill...and that's all I'm pretty much worried about...

I have kids who can tan even though I can't. Nice to know that evolution helped with that.

Well, I've heard your wife is hot - perhaps she had something to do with it?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

Some fish with catch size limits are rapidly evolving to be smaller.)

Nice, back on topic...is that a "man-made" change?

No More Fishing!

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[kallend 1,679]

Coreeece

***Some fish with catch size limits are rapidly evolving to be smaller.)

Nice, back on topic...is that a "man-made" change?

No More Fishing!

It doesn't matter where the predatory pressure comes from.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

lawrocket

I have kids who can tan even though I can't. Nice to know that evolution helped with that.

Evolution helped both you and them. It helped them because it gives them greater protection against skin cancer at more equatorial latitudes, where direct sunlight is more plentiful and less diffuse. It helped you in that it gives you greater ability to synthesize Vitamin D from sunlight at more polar latitudes where direct sunlight is less plentiful and more diffuse.

[billvon 2,475]

And Florida's status as the country's laughingstock is solidified:

============
Tampa Bay Times

Climate change ban boosts Florida's image as the Punchline State

Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:00pm

There's that sound again: people around the country laughing at Florida.

"So the Florida Department of Environmental Protection can't use the term 'climate change'?" comic Larry Wilmore asked on The Nightly Show on Wednesday. "That's like telling Rudy Giuliani he can't use the word '9/11.' "

Comics, cartoonists and columnists have all jumped on the story, broken by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, in which former DEP employees said no one at the state agency was allowed to use the terms "climate change," "global warming" or "sustainability." As the story has gone viral, it has turned into one more way the Sunshine State has become the Punchline State.

"First rule of climate change in Florida: Don't mention climate change," smirked the website Mashable. A follow-up story by the FCIR said the ban extended beyond DEP to other state agencies as well, beginning with Gov. Rick Scott's election as governor in 2010.

"Can't we just ban the term 'Rick Scott'?" Wilmore asked on his Comedy Central show.

. . .

Except for a flat denial that he banned the term, Scott has refused to discuss the issue. On Wednesday, at an event at Port Manatee, Scott said he had "talked to people on both sides of the issue. What I've focused on is how do we get things done."

But when he was asked, "Do you want them to avoid that term?" Scott simply said, "Thanks, guys," and ended the brief news conference.

. . .

When he ran for re-election last year, his response to questions about climate change was, "I'm not a scientist."

On Thursday one of those scientists, Eckerd College professor David Hastings, said of the ban on the term "climate change": "It's discouraging."

His fellow scientists from around the country have commented to him that "they're amazed we could be this backward" in Florida, he said.
. . .

"Florida has often been the laughingstock of the country," Hastings said. "This continues to reveal that we do some pretty silly things here."
==============