Post by JDSoCal on Sept 18, 2018 14:14:58 GMT -8
I see the usual intelligent, well-reasoned arguments from Tuffett and gtrplyr.
That's what happens when you attack a religion. Jihadism.
JD whilst my only contact with you is through this board, I have a general impression of you as having a reasonable intellect and an acerbic wit, which I must say I quite enjoy.
However, in this area you are blindsided by your faith in political dogma to the point where you confuse science as a religion.
Religion is a sociocultural construct based on faith.
Science has a methodology based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing of hypothesis.
Who should I believe when it comes to climate science?
Should I believe the politician’s dogma(underpinned by lobby group funding) or scientific consensus, based on rigorous methodology and empirical fact?
Science is not a conspiracy or a religion. To believe so is just intellectual laziness.
Science is based on skepticism. There is no such thing as "consensus" in science. A single scientist with repeatable results is enough to invalidate any scientific principle. True scientists and science-minded folk are agnostic on the outcomes, and welcome and encourage any challenges to their hypotheses. But to listen to the AGW crowd, do they sound like this, or like jihadists trying to silence infidels? You've actually had some lefty politicos trying to make it a crime to deny AGW! It's hilarious that liberals can invoke science, while simultaneously screeching emotionally about their love for beloved mangroves and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic who must be burned at the stake ("burn the witch!" doesn't sound all that sciencey).
I would challenge anyone here to link to a single climate model that has been at all predictive in the past 20, 15, 10, or 5 years. Not just with temperatures, but also with weather events (we went 11 years without a major landfall hurricane - where was that predicted?). Accurate climate models simply do not exist. So the climate "scientists" have to change the data to fit the models. Or ignore data they don't like (e.g., satellite data, which tends to be far more accurate than ground stations which can be dramatically affected by their location and proximity to heat sources). A real science-minded person would say, "wow, tell me more!" I seriously doubt that will be the response to my post.
The validity of science can also be affected by funding. While you hear the AGW zealots decry the occasional Big Oil or Big Coal-funded study, the vast majority of climate studies are funded by what we'd call the pro-AGW perspective. The stories about skeptic scientists being shut out of funding or even having their jobs put at risk are quote numerous. Again, science is supposed to welcome skeptics, not shun them.
There's also a selection bias in climate scientists. Most choose that field because they are already predisposed to believe in AGW (same reason most sociologists are liberals - "I must save the world!" LOL).
REGARDLESS, Tim Cook, as an inside director of Apple, owes shareholders maximum return. He does not owe mangroves anything, and if we wants to save the world he should go run an NGO.
And I'm really tired of hearing from the "work for change" crowd, who try to infect every single aspect of human endeavor with their politics, that I should just sell my stock if I don't like it. That's not how public corporations work (certainly not for liberals, who think shareholder activism is just dandy when they are doing it). I've held AAPL long before anyone ever heard of Tim Cook, let alone his VP of Social Justice or whatever that nonsense title is, and I'd face major tax implications for selling my stock. If Cook were the majority shareholder of a privately-held company (which, of course liberals want to change/boycott/fire the CEO whenever they disagree with them, like Chik-fil-A or Hobby Lobby), he might have some right to inject his politics. But Apple is publicly-held and he has no right to run a social justice crusade with MY company.
This is NOT the purpose of a public company, and Steve Jobs would have never have done anything like this. Jobs, who tended to keep his political beliefs private, and never donated money publicly, would never have wanted to poke half of potential Apple customers in the eye with blatant activism and censorship (e.g., Alex Jones).
I probably would NOT be an Apple stockholder if I were just starting out investing in 2018. But I am in for a penny, in for a ton right now. And so, as an owner of the company, I will express my views about how it is run on an AAPL FINANCE BOARD. Especially when someone else brings it up first!
At least until I realize how unproductive that is when I look at the time I have wasted!