Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I can see that the media are going to make the "Climate Change" thing a litmus test. So this is what I suggest:

Assemble your own scientific advisory panel on the general practice of science and refer the media to them.

Should be no problem. Just get a credentialed statistician and someone who can discuss the scientific method. Focus on the fact that one doesn't need to be a climate scientist to critque climate science. It's science.

Focus on what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method. Point out that the 2007 IGPCC report said that unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct. Attack it from the general perspective of what the scientific method requires.

I guarantee you that it will put them on the defensive because it is the truth. They'll have to admit to the fundamental weakness of the entire discipline of climate science.

JohnStOnge wrote:I can see that the media are going to make the "Climate Change" thing a litmus test. So this is what I suggest:

Assemble your own scientific advisory panel on the general practice of science and refer the media to them.

Should be no problem. Just get a credentialed statistician and someone who can discuss the scientific method. Focus on the fact that one doesn't need to be a climate scientist to critque climate science. It's science.

Focus on what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method. Point out that the 2007 IGPCC report said that unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct. Attack it from the general perspective of what the scientific method requires.

I guarantee you that it will put them on the defensive because it is the truth. They'll have to admit to the fundamental weakness of the entire discipline of climate science.

You just lost the voters.

You just lost the voters.

No, because instead of starting off by saying "I'm not a scientist" you say "my science advisors say..." You fight back.

And if the media want to pursue it they can talk to the science advisors. And if what they're doing is talking about what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method the "climate change" crowd is either going to have to try to evade or it's going to have to admit that what they're saying is true. They may say, "That's true, but..." but they're going to have to say it's true.

Last year the only place on the planet cooler than normal was the east coast of the US.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You just lost the voters.

No, because instead of starting off by saying "I'm not a scientist" you say "my science advisors say..." You fight back.

And if the media want to pursue it they can talk to the science advisors. And if what they're doing is talking about what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method the "climate change" crowd is either going to have to try to evade or it's going to have to admit that what they're saying is true. They may say, "That's true, but..." but they're going to have to say it's true.

Your "science advisors" represent 3% of scientists and are funded by big oil to say that

Said the opposition

JohnStOnge wrote:I can see that the media are going to make the "Climate Change" thing a litmus test. So this is what I suggest:

Assemble your own scientific advisory panel on the general practice of science and refer the media to them.

Should be no problem. Just get a credentialed statistician and someone who can discuss the scientific method. Focus on the fact that one doesn't need to be a climate scientist to critque climate science. It's science.

Focus on what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method. Point out that the 2007 IGPCC report said that unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct. Attack it from the general perspective of what the scientific method requires.

I guarantee you that it will put them on the defensive because it is the truth. They'll have to admit to the fundamental weakness of the entire discipline of climate science.

Climate change denying scientists aren't cheap, JSO.

You'll sink half of your funds into a "scientific" panel.

Climate change are just one of the battles that the GOP can't win. Its too entrenched as a societal norm now. Like gay marriage, they would be fighting against the rising tide.

Besides, you're a politician, just lie about it like they all do.

"I would commission a panel to make recommendations to limit the environmental impact of industry in this country in the most cost efficient fashion that won't lead to a marked increased in federal spending like my Democratic opponent will campaign for."

Stick to the message that the Democrats is the "spend spend and when that doesn't work spend some more" party.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No, because instead of starting off by saying "I'm not a scientist" you say "my science advisors say..." You fight back.

And if the media want to pursue it they can talk to the science advisors. And if what they're doing is talking about what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method the "climate change" crowd is either going to have to try to evade or it's going to have to admit that what they're saying is true. They may say, "That's true, but..." but they're going to have to say it's true.

Your "science advisors" represent 3% of scientists and are funded by big oil to say that

Said the opposition

My reply to that would be "find me a climate scientist who supports AGW whose research we not funded by government grants that are not available to scientists who seek to refute AGW and I'll put them on my board of advisors."

I'm voting for DSU.

Baldy wrote:I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my shit together.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote:I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my shit together.

I'd vote for you too.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote:I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my shit together.

People who take responsibility for their children aren't welcome with the donks. You need to be a deadbeat dad like Steve Jobs and Alan Grayson

Pwns wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my shit together.

People who take responsibility for their children aren't welcome with the donks. You need to be a deadbeat dad like Steve Jobs and Alan Grayson

Whereas conks are smart enough to abort them?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Climate change denying scientists aren't cheap, JSO.

You'll sink half of your funds into a "scientific" panel.

Good to see Donks accepting Climate Change. Hope you make money on your algore carbon credits.

houndawg wrote:Last year the only place on the planet cooler than normal was the east coast of the US.

Not so fast there dawg, for 2014, Minnesota average temp was 38.7 degrees, average is 40.1. Appears to be cooler than normal last year. Cooler States included: AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, NE, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV, WI. The average for the USA was 52.02, last year average of 52.52. It looks like the mid-section was cooler, south and east slightly cooler to slightly warmer, and the west was warmer.

Climate at a glance link

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Your "science advisors" represent 3% of scientists and are funded by big oil to say that

Said the opposition

My reply to that would be "find me a climate scientist who supports AGW whose research we not funded by government grants that are not available to scientists who seek to refute AGW and I'll put them on my board of advisors."

Reply: Grants are available to anyone who convinces using real science in the application. But please go on with your conspiracy theories.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
My reply to that would be "find me a climate scientist who supports AGW whose research we not funded by government grants that are not available to scientists who seek to refute AGW and I'll put them on my board of advisors."

Reply: Grants are available to anyone who convinces using real science in the application. But please go on with your conspiracy theories.

Really?

I have a front row seat to who gets grant money to study climate change. There's no conspiracy to it. Grant money flows from left to right and from right to left all depending on who is running the show at the moment.

And the spigot shuts off when you step out of line.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No, because instead of starting off by saying "I'm not a scientist" you say "my science advisors say..." You fight back.

And if the media want to pursue it they can talk to the science advisors. And if what they're doing is talking about what it takes to infer cause and effect and the role of controlled experimentation in the scientific method the "climate change" crowd is either going to have to try to evade or it's going to have to admit that what they're saying is true. They may say, "That's true, but..." but they're going to have to say it's true.

Your "science advisors" represent 3% of scientists and are funded by big oil to say that

Said the opposition

As opposed to the 97% funded by the government to say what they say.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote:I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my shit together.

WHy is it that "the grass is always greener..."?

How much money have we given away to different people, to study climate change?

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Reply: Grants are available to anyone who convinces using real science in the application. But please go on with your conspiracy theories.

Really?

I have a front row seat to who gets grant money to study climate change. There's no conspiracy to it. Grant money flows from left to right and from right to left all depending on who is running the show at the moment.

And the spigot shuts off when you step out of line.

Reply: I didn't realize grants were approved through the senate.

(BTW, how is it you have a front row seat? Not denying, just curious)

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Your "science advisors" represent 3% of scientists and are funded by big oil to say that

Said the opposition

As opposed to the 97% funded by the government to say what they say.

Government has a tendency to fund things the private sector doesn't want to hear.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote:I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgments against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my **** together.

Stay away from the white women

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
As opposed to the 97% funded by the government to say what they say.

Government has a tendency to fund things that guarantee a bigger government.

Truth.