cognitive dissonance…. That’s what else he has.Of course he is arguing with memes.
What else does he have?
cognitive dissonance…. That’s what else he has.Of course he is arguing with memes.
What else does he have?
Mandrill adheres to the curious, and unsubstantiated, idea that judges have a superior understanding of everything, so whatever they decide about any subject must be correct. Of course, the reality is that the role of judges is just to determine disputes between litigants - for the simple social value of resolving the disputes, which is a very different role than being the final arbiter of truth (scientific or otherwise). Odd that a lawyer would have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system..Yeah OJ Simpson was acquitted
David Milgaard spent 23 years in prison hell labeled as a rapist and murder
Make sure you understand the difference between a scientist and an activist wearing a lab jacket
So guesswork based on what is presented or not presented or ignored
My guess is this will not be presented
How many times do you need to be told consensus does not determine science !!!!! ???????!!!!!!
Why do you fail to understand this?
Bullshit science??
The Bear Lambert Law is a scientific law which has stood the test of time
Absorption of infrared radiation is logarithmic wrt concentration and the absorption is saturated @ the 15 micron wavelength
The bullshit science is believing in models which have consistently been wrong while ignoring the physical laws of nature and the fact our climate is a chaotic system with many independant inpts
again "discredited" ??? WTF ???
Sorry cancel culture does not work when it comes to scientific truth
Galileo was discredited , so was David Milgard
Simple question why have Michael Mann / Phil Jones not been cancelled/ discredited ?
They only perpetuated a fraud and corrupted the peer-review process
and yet the polar bears are doing just fine, acres burnt by wild fires is down in the last 100 years, the Antarctic ice is not melting away, it is colder yesterday in Northern Europe , Russia and Australia than decades ago and the satellite dats shows next to no warming over the past 30years
All of which is inconsistent with the continue rise in CO2 levels and inconsistent bullshit "consensus" / "settled" science promoting CO2 as the control knob for climate
If you truly believe the courts can settle scientific questions, you have absolutely zero business commenting on any scientific matter
C'mon. How many people with sub university IQ's have you dealt with and how many university grads??.... Sure, you get kids who don't want to go to university and are smart as heck. But most kids who don't go to university these days can't get in academically. And there's a huge fucking difference.Getting into Boston College automatically means high IQ? Doubt it....
Point taken, Dutch. Next time we have multi-billion $$$ environmental / resource business litigation, we'll let the counter dude at Subway make the call.Mandrill adheres to the curious, and unsubstantiated, idea that judges have a superior understanding of everything, so whatever they decide about any subject must be correct. Of course, the reality is that the role of judges is just to determine disputes between litigants - for the simple social value of resolving the disputes, which is a very different role than being the final arbiter of truth (scientific or otherwise). Odd that a lawyer would have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.
C'mon, MTG and Boebert are definitely dumb, no doubt about that. I'd go out on a limb and say Cawthorne is too...but don't make it out like AOC and her credentials a testament of her being some type of menza...she isn't...in paper yes, but IRL she isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...C'mon. How many people with sub university IQ's have you dealt with and how many university grads??.... Sure, you get kids who don't want to go to university and are smart as heck. But most kids who don't go to university these days can't get in academically. And there's a huge fucking difference.
My sister teaches community college and deals with sub university kids all the time. Many are dumb as fuck and lazy to boot. MTG and Boebert fall into that category. Cawthorne might be a little smarter, but is such a corrupt, grifting little turd that it makes scant difference.
If someone has university level smarts - especially a known school like Boston College - they can handle political issues and political reasoning. AOC is really young and that's why her solutions are sometimes impractical. That's lack of life experience, not dummz. You deal with smart 20-somethings, that's what they're like. Just like AOC.
I've seen her. She strikes me as smart, but not seasoned or practical. That's being young. Hey, I was young once too.C'mon, MTG and Boebert are definitely dumb, no doubt about that. I'd go out on a limb and say Cawthorne is too...but don't make it out like AOC and her credentials a testament of her being some type of menza...she isn't...in paper yes, but IRL she isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...
Again.....Get use to it (memes)Again…. You are arguing with memes.
Well since the IPCC did not recognize Phil Jones / Michael Manns fraud, they will continue to ignore the Urban Heat Island effectSo I doubt anyone at the IIPC has made a public statement saying “we were wrong”.
Nope the Urban Heat Island effect is realSpin. That’s all your meme is, spin. Please stop posting spin.
That is obviousNow… I am not a scientist.
Once againHowever, when scientists at oil companies (and the legal teams), agree with experts (please note I did not say activists in lab coats… I said experts) that the climate science is real, and humans are causing the climate to change…. Then I tend to believe them over you.
You know nothing about my scientific training or understandingThey are experts, you are not.
And it should be so painfully obvious that a change of 0.01% of atmospheric composition can not possibly drive a physically process capable of creating the catastrophic disasters being promotedYou can post formulas, memes, and say 15 microns until your head explodes. It does not change the proven fact that humans are burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate, and that has environmental consequences. That is so painfully obvious that I should not have to explain it to a grown up who professes to understand the science. Yet here we are again.
I think you do not thinkI don’t know why the cognitive dissonance has such a hold on you… mind you, most of the GOP still believe the election was stolen (even when the media and Trumps lawyer said they were not responsible for fact checking fraud claims, and courts shot them down)… so the fact the righties hate the left so much that they can’t bring themselves to see the burning Forrest through the trees should not surprise me.
I think your Politics has blinded you.
a whole lot more than you bring to the tableOf course he is arguing with memes.
What else does he have?
Yeah rightNew catchphrase on repeat!
This is a good one though. LaRue admitting his understanding of science is stuck at the high school level is clarifying.
As slow as our justice system moves, it actually operates too quickly to adequately educate judges in areas outside of their expertise (which would include EVERY scientific question). The courts, after all, have limited time and resources. However, courts deliver the rough justice necessary to dissuade litigants from attempting to kill each other to resolve their disputes, so they accomplish something of value.Point taken, Dutch. Next time we have multi-billion $$$ environmental / resource business litigation, we'll let the counter dude at Subway make the call.
Judges aren't that smart and they don't really have a lifetime of experience in processing and assessing information and coming to a decision. I was mistaken.
You should read you meme… you might learn something.Yeah right
I have forgotten more science than you will ever understand
You did not like the same message as described by Dr. Richard Feynman
So which should I use
and "neither" is not an acceptable response
or
A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class
Big Oil not only knows judges aren't that smart. They know judges canPoint taken, Dutch. Next time we have multi-billion $$$ environmental / resource business litigation, we'll let the counter dude at Subway make the call.
Judges aren't that smart and they don't really have a lifetime of experience in processing and assessing information and coming to a decision. I was mistaken.
Actually he would have had lots of observational dataYou mean that they objected to his model, specifically.
you should read it, you might learn something.You should read you meme… you might learn something.
you questioned his point and wanted a link to the study he referencedAt this point I don't know why it was even brought up.
I'd like to claim that I was once the male AOC, but I wasn't anything as fuckable!
No... you choose political bias.you should read it, you might learn something.
I have always understood scientific theory is not determined by consensus or the courts
Oh boyNo... you choose political bias.
And my example did not have the courts deciding. My example was big oil agreeing 100% with the prosecution's EVIDENCE. There was no court decree as you would like to paint it.
It didn't have too...Oh boy
This is getting juvenile
argued in a court of law
That evidence did not contain any reference to saturation did it?
That evidence did not contain any reference to water vapor , convection, jet streams deep ocean currents, aerosols, ocean volcanic activity photosynthiesis elevation, the urban heat island effect etc, etc etc did it?
There has been 50 years of failed climate predictions.
How is that for evidence for you ?
Your 15 micron argument, absorbing radiation sounds like incoming sunlight and heat... the rest of us are dealing with heat once its hit the earth... it gets trapped. I think you are describing apple's, and the scientists are talking climate change.Oh boy
This is getting juvenile
argued in a court of law
That evidence did not contain any reference to saturation did it?
That evidence did not contain any reference to water vapor , convection, jet streams deep ocean currents, aerosols, ocean volcanic activity photosynthiesis elevation, the urban heat island effect etc, etc etc did it?
There has been 50 years of failed climate predictions.
How is that for evidence for you ?