Everyone knows that Donald Trump is the nation's offical climatologist.
i'm confused on what this is mocking: climate change deniers? nate silver? both? if nate silver is part of the equation, why? i think his results in general speak for themselves.
I don't think Nate Pundit is supposed to be read as Nate Silver (or any other Nate). I've already seen him as satirizing the Bill O'Reilly types.
i'm confused on what this is mocking: climate change deniers? nate silver? both?
i think his results in general speak for themselves.
I think NASA along with 97% of climate scientists' results in general speak for themselves.
I thought he was our official obamageneologist?
The comic's last panel is exactly how I envision the US government functioning these days. "Rush Limbaugh said what? Damn that magnificant genius!"
right, but as far as i know, nate silver isn't a climate change denier. that's where my confusion comes in. [EDIT]: just read your link. i'll be damned. i had no idea.
Well, he is a true renaissance man; just ask anyone who works for him.
The funny, funny thing about Global Warming is: No matter what anyone says, no matter how nasty people get to each other, the Earth doesn't care. Being "right" won't affect the Earth at all. No amount of absolute certainty on the correctness of ones beliefs has anything to do with what is going to happen.
The necessity of pointing that out is what shits me most about people.
In that op-ed, Michael Mann writes:
Nate Silver was trained in the Chicago school of Economics, famously characterized by its philosophy of free market fundamentalism. In addition to courses from Milton Friedman, Nate might very well have taken a course from University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt
Silver has a bachelor's degree in economics from Chicago, but the saying "he might very well have taken a course..." is just bullshit. Sure, and he may have killed the universe's only unicorn while inventing a time machine. For Mann to excoriate Silver for his climate denialism and then follow that up with fallacious reasoning is delicious.
Second, Mann seems to assert that he knows for a fact that Silver took a class with Milton Friedman. Considering that Silver graduated in 2000 and Friedman retired from the University of Chicago in 1977...possible but unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if Friedman continued to teach occasional courses at Chicago after his retirement (though he did move to California afterward), I'd be very surprised if he was teaching undergraduate courses.
Or maybe Mann did this intentionally...debunk SIlver and the helpfully provide an example of poor reasoning for someone else's column.
Mann seems to assert that he knows for a fact that Silver took a class with Milton Friedman.
He did? I think he's referring to coursework curriculum derived from Friedman's works (k-percent rule, etc.), not that he literally had Milton Friedman himself as a teacher for his courses. But, I could be wrong.
Not really, if the science is right and humans are the primary driving force being right will matter. The only ways to alter our climate trajectory would involve convinging lots of people of the correctness of the science.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.