"Hundred year <weather>"

If you're educated enough to know what the "Andy scale is? then just:
Like, Comment, and Subscribe..."

Attribution:
https://www.cartalk.com/radio/letter/andy-scale

Dear 'Sirs',

I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc.

Posit the question:
Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about?
In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less!
One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary.

I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest.

I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved.

 

The methane is breaking down into water and CO2. So it isn't done with the warming even when gone.

 

Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about?

If the person who doesn't know what they are talking about, is convincing enough to make another person believe they do know what the first person is talking about, then quotes the first person a proof that the non-fact is indeed a fact ...... Then the two people now know less about the subject because they now know a non-fact and use that to block true facts from entering the thinking .... anything they build on from that point, the more they believe something they don't know .....

At least, I think that's correct

T1 Terry

 

Weather is Climate.
Climate is Weather.

 

we need more climate forecasters

 

Why do all the deniers call themselves skeptics,
and believers always call them both deniers?

There is a big difference; a denier ignores verified evidence,
and a skeptic refuses to make a conclusion without more evidence.

 

Atmospheric methane is decomposed by the hydroxyl radical, and water and CO2 are decomposition products.

Andy and Jamie did not know what they were talking about but they did it with eloquence.

 

This question asks about how people in two categories ('deniers' and 'believers') behave, but leaves kind of unmentioned the everybody-elses.

'Deniers' probably call themselves 'skeptics' because they expect that to improve their reception by everybody-elses. (They already know it won't make a difference with 'believers'.)

Everybody-elses, therefore, face a constant need to distinguish between 'skeptics' and 'deniers calling themselves skeptics'. The difference usually becomes visible in how people in those two categories respond to being shown evidence.

 

A believer will listen and pick apart an argument put forward by a denier.

A denier will simply brand anything that doesn't follow their way of thinking without listening to reason

A sceptic will listen to both sides of an argument, ask questions of both sides, the denier will generally put up a smokescreen of unrelated "facts" in an attempt to strengthen their position, where a believer will answer the questions to the best of their knowledge, but accept the sceptic may still be on the fence about the would thing ..... a denier can never accept someone isn't in their camp, it's one side or the other ....

T1 Terry

 

SO your model is fairly heavily weighted towards.....'believers?'

That seems....um....slightly 'counter-science' to me personally, but YOU do YOU.

I'm a skeptic.
NOT a denier.
It seems to ME that a 'denier' is somebody who has already cast their ballot.
...um....same as the 'believer'...as long as we're being honest!

Otherwise believers would have no cause to 'pick apart arguments' other than the joy of being pedantic.

 

Maybe, in your view. If someone isn't willing to listen to an alternate belief, they are a denier because their mind is closed.

A sceptic will tell you what they've heard and tend towards believing, but when you put a counter argument and back it with verifiable facts, they will listen and make a judgement as to whether they want to hear more of the other side of the argument, or they really are a denier and don't want to accept they may have been wrong .....

If the evidence stacks up, from a number of different test results, if it shows I'm on the wrong track, I will investigate further to see if the results of tests I based my belief on were subjected to peer review, the same as the results of the tests that have made me want to investigate further, those that have their finding back up by independently financed studies, I look deeper into, ones financed by vested interests are put in the fodder pile.

T1 Terry

 

What is - just a regular person - who doesn't stereotype others - and just enjoys listening to and interacting with others - not worried about always having their own opinion be - the right one.

 

A happy sole? If you can find a way of avoiding others trying to ram their beliefs down you throat ..... look deeply into how you do it, then write a self help book, it would be a best seller .....

T1 Terry

 

It has already been covered - there is help right now....

The Need to Be Always Right | Psychology Today

14 Reasons You Need To Be Right All The Time + 6 Steps To Let Go

The Psychology Behind Your Need to Be Right

 

I've been married 3 times, I'm well experienced with being wrong ..... on the odd occasion I'm right, that is a time to take the small rewards .... because it won't last, but it's so good for the short time it lasts, so enjoy it to the fullest ..... everyone needs a bit of happiness in their life, just being right once in while keeps me going through all the times I'm wrong

T1 Terry