LOL @ Scott Adams

Looking at one of his recent blog entries where he talks about Trump and economic optimism and then goes on to talk about visual persuasion.

Quote:

---

Trump, the Master Persuader, is rewiring our brains in real time – while we are watching him do it. He wants us to be optimistic about the economy, so he finds the right buttons (Ford, Carrier, Boeing) and he pushes them. He looks for situations that have simplicity and a visual element. It is easy for people to imagine a Ford automobile, a Carrier air conditioner, a factory, a worker, an airplane, and Mexico. Every element of these stories is visual. That’s not an accident. That is technique.

---

Then he relates this to climate change/science:

Quote:

---

The simple, visual persuasion favors the climate alarmists. They can point to rising seas, super hurricanes, and droughts. We can imagine all of that stuff and it scares us. Fear plus a visual element make for the strongest persuasion.

---

Quote:

---

If you think many people believe in climate science predictions because of the science and the facts, you don’t know anything about human beings. We just observed an election in which facts and policies barely mattered at all. What matters is how we feel. Climate change is the same situation. All of the natural elements of persuasion are on one side. We can visualize bad weather and it scares us. The other side has nothing, persuasion-wise.

---

Quote:

---

Prediction: By the end of Trump’s term it will be considered common knowledge that we need to be aggressive in green energy for a variety of reasons, but the public will not trust the climate model predictions. We’ll get to a greener world for reasons of economics and strategy. We’ll never really know if we solved climate change problems at the same time.
And do you know what gets us to that greener world faster?

Answer: A strong economy.

You have never been safer.

---

He makes a lot of good points but the part I really like is his closer:

Quote:

---

You might like my book because of the strong visual persuasion I am using.
http://68.media.tumblr.com/34c192421...t63ajm_500.jpg

---

[Alrigh]

Gotta admit, the man is consistent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

Gotta admit, the man is consistent!

---

A liberal 'til the day his accepted ideology kills him.

The ironic thing about climate change is that if we do nothing and the world gets more CO2 and gets warmer it'll also get greener. Life thrives on warmth and dies from the cold.

If we do what the climate alarmists want us to do (and magically it would do what they say it would do, which it won't) the earth would actually get browner.

What will be annoying is if we do what the climate alarmists want us to do its not going to change a darn thing (since man caused CO2 is not causing increases in temperature) then they're going to think they fixed the problem when all they'll do is make most of us poorer and kill millions in the third world.

What's annoying to me is that consensus science makes radical flip flops in my lifetime, yet I am supposed to trust the scientists with liveliehoods built on climate hysteria or I am somehow defective.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/...r-ice-age.html

Quote:

---

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?

Because they were worried about a new ice age.

---

And guess what the solar cycle is saying? Consensus science might be wrong again!

Scott Adams has the same view of green energy as I do. I LIKE green energy. I WANT to use green energy. However, being a paladin of the environment is not the first of my reasons for liking green energy.

People are really dumb on the extremes of both sides of this debate, but the deniers will always come across as the dumber of the two (extremes).

I like the idea of not being dependent on the Arabs or Russia for oil and have been a fan of taking advantage of solar and geothermal energy for a long time -- but for strategic and economic reasons. The pseudo-science behind "carbon" hysteria is patently annoying to me as an engineer and physics student. Having said that, this post was more about Adams' observation that Trump is exercising good visual persuasion ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

The ironic thing about climate change is that if we do nothing and the world gets more CO2 and gets warmer it'll also get greener. Life thrives on warmth and dies from the cold.

If we do what the climate alarmists want us to do (and magically it would do what they say it would do, which it won't) the earth would actually get browner.

What will be annoying is if we do what the climate alarmists want us to do its not going to change a darn thing (since man caused CO2 is not causing increases in temperature) then they're going to think they fixed the problem when all they'll do is make most of us poorer and kill millions in the third world.

---

I always find it interesting that the climate change folks says more CO2 is the enemy, but I never see any mention of curbing Amazon rain forest deforestation as one of the solutions. In fact, I don't here anything about the deforestation as a possible cause. No money in saving the rain forest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firehaus

I always find it interesting that the climate change folks says more CO2 is the enemy, but I never see any mention of curbing Amazon rain forest deforestation as one of the solutions. In fact, I don't here anything about the deforestation as a possible cause. No money in saving the rain forest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

They wouldn't be able to get their Fair Trade Organic coffee and chocolate as cheaply if they helped protect the rain forest ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

I like the idea of not being dependent on the Arabs or Russia for oil and have been a fan of taking advantage of solar and geothermal energy for a long time -- but for strategic and economic reasons. The pseudo-science behind "carbon" hysteria is patently annoying to me as an engineer and physics student. Having said that, this post was more about Adams' observation that Trump is exercising good visual persuasion ...

---

Are we really dependent on Saudi and Russian oil, though?

https://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/...dependence.cfm

As I understand it, we're sitting on an ocean of oil -- largely trapped in shale. I'd be interested in knowing our actual dependence vs our simple importation, along with what it would take to completely go off all foreign oil and tell OPEC to pound sand (of which they have plenty).

Less foreign oil for us means more oil for everyone else. Use up foreign oil while we perfect renewable resources. Then implement renewable resources while sitting on largely untapped oil reserves.