Toward IMO's 2050 goal

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Not even you believe your own bullshit. Here’s what you said in another thread, about National Geographic suggesting to rename an ocean:

If you stuck to your principles, you’d back up National Geographic against the consensus opinion. But you don’t. You back up the consensus opinion! * :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:*.

Here’s where the crackpot logic of the Jughead Axiom takes you:

If the weather models from three different national weather agencies agree that a typhoon is aimed dead-nuts at your bow, you would be less likely to take evasive action than if all three models disagreed. Because the Jughead Axiom states that the more scientists and experts agree on something, the less likely that something is to be true.

But you and I know you would run like a scalded dog if all three national weather agencies models agreed on your imminent demise. You wouldn’t waste a New York minute on spinning that little dial on the autopilot.

Bu then you would have me believe that the same scientists–of different nations-- who collect the data and make the models you trust for your weather predictions are trustworthy from 8 to 11 in the morning, when they work on weather models, but are evil, worldwide conspirators from 1 to 5 in the afternoon, when they work on climate science. This is silly, Qanon-level wackiness.

It all comes down to trust. I trust NOAA/NASA. I don’t trust guys who change their core principles with each internet thread. Do you trust the consensus opinion or not? You waffle back and forth on it.

1 Like