It was meant more as a figure of speech, you correct about assuming that all people who use math are liars. However if that person is trying to control you or remove your liberty and justifying it 'with figures' to prove why you shouldn't be free I would be immediately suspicious of their desires.

Of the eight asked, 97% agree.

"only liars figure" = if someone figures then they're a liar. If we take this literally, it means we cannot know anything. We're left only with stuff we've personally experienced.

It reminds me of what a teacher once said to me; 'figures don't lie, but only liars figure!' They start off with I am a certified expert and you are not therefore you cannot disagree with me and must behave in the manner I prescribe for you or I will demand the 'right' to use violence to make you obey! Thank you for listening.

Indeed communication is a key part, in that you actually have to communicate. 2 way. Not one way, which if you note, is the Dumbocrap approach (and as long as the rest of the world seems bent on defining moral character and name calling, it seems the Dumbocrap idea of communication closely matches the Nazi and Fascist Italy models, which they espouse to be Trump). They demand, scream, and throw a tantrum if they do not get what they want. Their Representatives have proven any talk of country, or their oaths to serve, were just babble to get in the door. The media idea of communication is their standard: send out a broadcast and the drones respond. No thought, no evaluation, just threat and promise. If they do not buy you with "freebies" they threaten you with death, or an approximate. Childish, snowflake, immature behavior. And they would rule over us? I do not think so. I thought Trump made a good address today, blunt, straight, and nationalistic. There is nothing wrong with nationalistic, when it concerns your country, in that it is just the true statement of what all countries are seeking today "more for me, less for you, and you don't count anyways". I would submit the UN as an example: "Pay 50% of our corrupt money source, and then shut up and do what we tell you. We will tell you what is wrong with you, and we will all band together to condemn whoever we want"

Case and point, I am unaware of any significant vandalism rioting or arrests at a previous inauguration. There can be little doubt the political bias of those culpable. In response to their assertions of inappropriate behavior, Exactly who are the ones misbehaving?

I believe the root cause is not the issues at hand. It is the fact that their agenda must be communicated, debated and won before they can have action, rather than the mob mentality approach the media and previous administration employed. It is this same mob mentality yet again prevailing in these childish demonstrations.

I think we should watch this carefully. There are powerful communication mechanisms being demonstrated here. I doubt the direct appeal to individual logic is adequate to take them on.

Therein lies the root of the problem. You are willing to listen and engage, too many people do what the "protestors" are doing, and engage in emotional violence. They see the same behavior in their leaders, look at the Dumbocraps and their petty protests, their "Trump is illegitimate" BS, but if it is THEIR person, they cheer wildly and ram their agenda down your throat, and tell you to just shut up and give (or they take). It is this that leads to no discussion, no debate, no consensus, because none of those give them "what they want". Until a new crop of emotionally mature, responsible leaders arise, this will continue. Like a herd of barbarians burning down the town to "express their rage" and then wanting public aid to build a new one. Exchange of ideas is needed, but not on a one way road.

I am pretty much aligned to that position as well. I still believe if there is a market, some genius will pull a Gault and come up with something.

I am all for eliminating dependence on oil. Doing so is overwhelmingly the least expensive investment in our national security against terrorism (AGW aside). However the solution has to be practical and fiscally viable. Solar and wind zealots are just that. Even the engineers working on this equipment know it is not a comprehensive or fiscally responsible approach. There are other approaches, but they are not "cool". Nuclear and vegetable oil-based diesel are ready to go, and corn-ethanol should stop immediately.

No doubt you are right. My information is hearsay, but I trust its veracity completely. Neither I or my brother are closed minded on this subject. The greenies may be right, but they want to take action and control before it is proven.

Well, there are some negative effects that do need consideration, one of which is that as all the permafrost regions thaw, there is a huge amount of biomass that previously was not decaying, that is starting to decay. That leads to a lot of Methane and organic gases being released, which may cause issues, since they do impact the balance in the atmosphere. The flip side is, at one time, that stuff was not frozen, and it grew there, so the climate must have adapted it into it's balance somehow.

Your story reflect others who have made similar claims, and not just with NASA, it is also true in most colleges, and Federal agencies. The leading scientific climate change "denier" has just resigned from her job in a University, citing the negative and hate filed atmosphere she was in. Truth is not welcomed when it does not match their politics...

Your point is very valid, if there was such a huge threat, the economic impetus would also follow, as well as the pressure to create. They love to cry and moan, yet no where do you see concrete solutions and proposals, beyond, like the old nuke averse people did "ban the bomb".

Nah, there is still way too much money on the table, and many cottage industries as well. They will not give up, just change their tactics. Expect "Trump is killing us all" or "Trumpian policies are ruining the earth" or worse yet, "Trump will end earthworms". They will come, they are just reworking all the posters and books....

Working in a business ruled by statisticians (semiconductor manufacturing) I can say for a fact, you can make a elephant fly with a balloon, given enough data. It can be used to the exclusive ignorance of all other factors, to make an conclusion you need. The thing the dry statisticians miss is the "context" in which the data is obtained, and how you erive your baselines and control limits. You can do it with pure math, and have some neat, orderly data, but when you try to apply that order to the disordered reality, it starts to fail as that context causes changes. This is what people miss with statistics, they are just one part of an overall equation, a tool, not a complete answer.

Sad, I actually remember ads like that...on TV, in BW. Ancient, I be...

Good point, Prof. And so true about a lot of things today. Facts do not matter, just "correct thought".

Right on the "money". This whole climate change debacle is a manipulation of facts to suit an agenda, and a money maker. But the comments above are just as applicable, it is "religion".

A little on the mind numbing side but seems rational to me.
http://www.c3headlines.com/

I'm all in with you on nuclear, good to hear you agree, but most AGWs zealots don't support the only solution to the problem they believe in.

"...actually we should have started 20 years ago when scientists discovered what a grave threat global warming is."
Just keep in mind that you are making an assertion here, that CO2, and moreover human-based CO2, is the culprit. There is NO physics behind this assertion, NONE. There is correlation and a number of empirical models that ALL have water vapor as the primary greenhouse effect. There are various hypotheses about how CO2 begets water vapor, but none are proven.
I am completely disgusted at how hard I had to dig to figure this out. This simple information is known to all the "Scientists" you refer to, but there is practically no layperson documentation on this.

Just another note. My brother is the chief engineer for mechanical at NASA. He has told me directly, if a NASA person proposed research that did not specifically support the AGW story, it would be unfunded. This is disgusting anti-scientific censorship, precisely the same as the internet censorship in China and North Korea except in scale. It is completely unacceptable and indicative of why a government should never be trusted.

That is true. Parts of Greenland have become arable. That would have happened anyway, but it happened faster thanks to human activities. The problem is costs are far greater: coastal flooding, previously arable land becoming more arid, the contribution to the current max extinction event,

This is not my area of expertise, but I suspect some kind of geoengineering will be developed to stop the negative effects of climate change and purposely affect the climate for human interests. I don't think we'll be able to stop burning stuff for energy in time to stop the problem.

The geoengineering is just an idea at this point, so all we can do at this moment is reduce burning stuff.

"Why are you not screaming for nuclear power?"...because they don't really believe it..."
Yes. Technically I do not believe scientific theories, but I accept them. I say accept because new evidence may come along and surprise us.

We absolutely should be developing nuclear power. We should calculate the cost the rare accidents against the cost of global warming due to burning fossil fuels. Nuclear is a bargain. It will get even safer as it gets more common. The fossil fuels will get expensive to extract (colloquially "run out") eventually, and we'll have to find alternatives anyway. We should do it now, actually we should have started 20 years ago when scientists discovered what a grave threat global warming is.

If you've ever discussed (or argued) this with Believers, you'll usually find they'll say whatever source you use for your argument is invalid. If you call someone a scientist, they'll say they're not in the right field. If you use someone who was formerly one of their own that didn't tow the Believer line, Judith Curry for instance, they'll just say she's been discredited.

Works like that just about every time in my experience. I recall not long ago trying to direct a Believer from one of the comment sections of a California newspaper to David Friedman's blog where he explained the falsehood of the 97% figure. That Believer wouldn't even follow the link writing that Friedman was just a denier so he wasn't going to waste his time reading what Friedman had written.

Love it. First, define scientist. Second, define devastating consequences. One can make any argument with statistics to prove a point. Cherry picking data to prove a point seems to be the norm. When I hear "scientists" include the effects of solar flares and CO2 release from earthquakes in the ocean I pay attention. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of CO2 laden hot air from people with political and economic agendas.

Hi fredtyg,
I don't disagree, but I will nit pick a bit. Feeling is not evidence, what you observe and discern is.
The sheeple take a narrative that is repeated endlessly and FEEL that they are not good citizens
If they don't go along with the crowd. They don't investigate and discover. Their feeling relieves them of the labor to do their homework. Please don't take offense, but have you read Atlas Shrugged.Ayn Rand says
"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. ... What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts."
Respectfully,
DOB