Troy

"I analyse mumbers. And I think critically and come to a conclusion." So the presumption Del must be that you don't think the scientists that disagree with you think critically or have the ability to analyze numbers. You actually believe that you know more than all the scientists who have reached an overwhelming consensus because you know statistics. That is deep Brother man, very deep. Del my opinion about some movie does not compare to my opinion about a scientific finding. One is just my take on how much I was entertained and the other requires some level of knowledge I simply do not presume to have, unlike yourself. As far as Obama, sure most of my opinions are based on my experience and those around me. People are struggling more than ever. I had lunch with a Brother yesterday that still does not have health insurance-- he said the $169 per month he was asked to pay for Obama care was too much. Of course, I can go on and on with anecdotes from my corner of the world in Harlem. Things are still bad and getting worse for poor folk.., so I qualified to have an opinion on Obama's effectiveness. Again with the science, I'm not pulling core samples, but there are people who do and they tell me what they've found. I've chosen to trust them, because my critical analysis of the entire situation says what motivation would they have to lie. What you think is critical analytics is limited solely to crunching numbers.... "To a boy with a hammer, all the world is a nail." Dude you don;t have any more "free time" than I do or anyone else for that matter. I choose what I do with my time. I could be crunching numbers to justify being a climate change denier, or I could be using that time to converse with you. I was much less "critical" when Al Gore was sounding the alarm, but more information has come forth and now I'm convinced. Del if you look hard enough you can find communities of people who believe anything, so I'm not moved by your list of deniers. You act like no one else is aware folk? There are millions of people right here in the United States that believe the world is only 6,000 years old and Dinosaurs roamed the Earth with man. They to have "scientists" that assert this to be fact and they have spreadsheets too. Of course, the vast majority of scientists say the Dinosaurs and Sapiens are separated by millions of years. Can I can prove they are right--no, but I trust them. Why? That is called thinking man. @Delano, do you believe Dinosaurs and man walked the Earth the same time? Can you prove it? Why do you believe what you believe?

I agree with that 100% Cynique. At the end of the day, I'm not a follower of Farrakhan, in fact, I'm a follower of no man, it simply is not in my nature. But I understand why others might get feel the need to follow someone--for them, it can be very beneficial. There are people who follow Farrakhan and their lives are much better for it. They derive discipline, a strength in character. I know a few of these brothers and Farrakhan has had a positive impact on them. Again the NOI is not for everyone it definitely is not for me, but I recognize their positive influence Farrakhan get my respect because he is their leader. I also feel I've obtained some benefit from the NOI--easily when I was in my 20's he helped inspire Black pride and Black unity. This was the power of the MMM that I think you may not appreciate. That impact was felt even by Brothers who did not attend. But again I'm just not gonna be rocking a bow tie, going to services every Sunday, and giving up pork and alcohol to get down with them. I also recognize that many people derived a great deal of joy and inspiration from Obama's presidency, and if that has helped them get through life more easily--I'm all for it.

...After almost 4 months, I've decided to end my boycott of social media. I definitely won't go back to posting every day, nor will I engage in efforts to increase engagement on these platforms. Maybe I'll post once a week, in the hopes that someone with an engaged social media audience shares what I've posted. Others sharing my posts is what has generated all of my social media traffic for the past three years, anyway... Social media is very powerful, too powerful if you ask me.

No, Del I did not miss your point, I fundamentally disagreed with it. There is a difference; you keep confusing disagreement with a lack of understanding. But since you are a cool dude I'll explain; I did not choose to discuss "the data," because I completely disagree with the premise. What is the point of discussing the two plots you've posted? As I said, I do not think what you've presented is sufficient to understand man's impact on climate, what is the point on delving deeper into what I view as a flawed assumption? Looking at it another way; Lets take it for granted that I agree 100% with the conclusions you've drawn from the data you've obtained. That will not change my position on climate change. Do you understand why? Even if I completely disagreed with your interpretation of the data, that will not prove that I'm right about climate change; besides you'll simply say I'm too stupid to understand the data. In either scenario, my position does not change. @Delano, you feel you have discovered something all the other scientists have missed, right? (that is a direct question).

@Delano understand that you invested a lot of time energy and money to master statistics. Obviously, we disagree about man's impact on the climate change. You bolster your opinion by saying how smart you are and how dumb anyone who disagrees with you must be. I support my opinion my saying you simply can not know more than the entire community of scientists who study the subject for a living. No need to continue beating a dead horse... The issue about Black/white science is a silly diversion, and as @Xeon eloquently described makes no sense.

Cynique if you put it that way; Obama got my vote (twice), but Farrakhan failed to get me to come out to DC, So in that regard, Obama was more effective with more people (though traveling to DC was a lot more difficult that traveling to one's polling place). Obama's becoming the first "Black" president is a historic accomplishment, one that is not likely to be repeated for another century. This is indeed indisputable. Cynique, from a personal perspective I think you are overemphasizing my negative views of Obama. I have both positive and negative things to say about both men. I have positive and negative things to say about myself. One can hold all of these opinions. Obviously, I'll continue to voice my opinions them whenever I choose. I also go around prefacing every Obama critique with something positive just to make people who nothing bad to say the man feel comfortable...

@Pioneer1 , if it means anything to ya Bruh I agree 100% @Cynique , nothing Pioneer wrote disagrees with what you or Xeon wrote. I would go as far as to say what he wrote is indisputable--which is saying a lot Sorry for anyone who saw that protected and obscene racist post. Truth be told some of it was kinda funny, but if you did not see it don't worry about it. Racist trolls are everywhere.

@Xeon, I'm not attempting to speak for Pioneer, but given what you wrote; “Negroes are still mired in a quagmire of high unemployment, illegitimacy and fatherless homes, being the last in every single category of academic achievement, first in homicide (victims of other Negroes) which is the number one cause of death for black males 18-35, incarcerations being the norm, the negative perception and low expectation of black people by non-blacks is still unwavering, etc, etc.” assuming this is true, why blame this state on what you perceive as the failure of the MMM? Using this logic it would be reasonable to place our current predicament at the feet of every Black person including Obama, King, El Haji Malik el Shabazz, and you and I. Why single out Farrakhan's MMM to blame? We all have a hand in this, including our oppressors. At the end of the day, Farrakhan's MMM was a powerful event for many. Of course, this is not universally accepted, but nothing is universally accepted where man is concerned.

Del, no one is saying the science is perfect, they point out a potential problem, you run with it a reject the conclusions. That is fine, I'm ok with the conclusion presented in the Boston Globe article and the article you posted (when I actually did read). Both articles were entirely consistent given the information available and their assessment of it. I'm perfectly happy to agree with the conclusion they have arrived at. I also read the last article you posted, but I no longer see the link, I guess you removed it. I'm glad. Del, maybe if you went to Antarctica and collected data on how rapidly it is melting, or if you pulled core samples to measure CO levels, or measured tree rings, or performed any of the myriad other tests to measure climate over time you might arrive at a different conclusion. But you are perfectly free play weekend climatologist with your limited dataset, knowledge, and experience. I'm simply trusting the experts on this one. And really Del that is all it boils down to my trusting the scientists more that lay people in the general public. I understand how an airplane works, but I would not try to tell a pilot how to fly it. This is one of the reasons back seat drivers, especially the ones without licenses, are so annoying. It takes bravery to stand up for an unpopular position especially when they are in the extreme minority. Sometimes you have to step back, try to understand why so many knowledgeable people disagree with you rather than digging deeper and becoming even more rigid. Sometimes it takes more bravery to admit you still may not understand all of the issues to draw sound conclusions. Stay in your lane bruh and let the pros handle this one Truth be told, I actually wish you were right.

Del it is easy, and again beneath you, to continue making snide remarks about my intelligence as a way for you to dismiss the science. Again it is not me you disagree with. You are disagreeing with the sum output of the planet's scientific community. I'm only reporting their conclusions--including from a source YOU provided! You cherry picks lines out of context, to make a point. It is the way some people use the Bible and a sorry tactic. A conversation not being possible was obvious when I started the thread, Del. It puzzled me how otherwise intelligent people, with no ties to the fossil fuel industry, could dismiss the science and deny global warming. Now I, and I hope others, have more insight as to how this is possible. Thanks. It will be fascinating to see if you change your mind and what you read that changed it.

I removed that statement. Here is a good timeline: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560 Answer my question, thanks.

Again, you want me to debate a conclusion that is based on an assumption that I'm not even sure is true. @Delano do I understand you correctly: are you drawing the conclusion that climate change only started in 1980 based upon the graph above? Please confirm.

Del, OK. I'm not going to argue with you or try to convince you otherwise. If the planet's scientific community catches up to you and reverses decades of research and analysis and agrees with your assessment, I'll agree with you too. I just looked at the links you've provided. The sites supported what the global scientific community has been saying. Below is a direct quote from the site YOU provided links to (emphasis mine). I'm beginning to think you are just messing around with me- "Changes to the climate system have been observed at a global scale, in the measurements of temperature at the surface, and the middle atmosphere, increased sea level, increased sea surface temperature, increased ocean heat content, and increased water vapour in the atmosphere. Decreased polar ice sheets, decreased global sea ice extent (with regional variation but overall net loss), and net decrease in glacier volumes (with regional variation) have also been observed. Drivers of these observed changes have been identified as a positive radiative forcing of the atmosphere, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. In this regard, human influence on the climate system is clear. Future global and regional climate change indicate that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY UNVEILS SPEAKER LINE-UP FOR ITS INAUGURAL MULTICULTURAL SUMMIT, CAA AMPLIFY Attendees Will Hear Insights from High-Profile Leaders from the Worlds of Entertainment and Sports, Activism, Technology, Politics, Advocacy, and Education Invitation-Only Event Provides a Dynamic Platform for Key Decision-Makers and Influencers to Help Accelerate the Growth and Visibility of Diversity in Business LOS ANGELES (June 19, 2017) – Creative Artists Agency (CAA) today announced the speaker line-up for CAA AMPLIFY, an invitation-only event convening multicultural artists and leaders from entertainment, sports, media, corporate brand marketing, and technology to accelerate the growth, value, and visibility of diversity in business. AMPLIFY kicks-off June 20, 2017 in Laguna Beach, CA, and will explore a variety of topics, including leadership, disruption and opportunity, technology, and the creative process, as well as criminal justice reform, civil rights, and immigration. Providing a dynamic platform to share business insights, explore industry trends, and discuss social issues, AMPLIFY’s invited guests will hear from, and interact with, an array of innovative leaders, including director, writer, and producer J.J. Abrams; director, producer, and writer Ava DuVernay; President of public policy organization Demos and its action arm Demos Action Heather C. McGhee; Founder and President of the National Black Women’s Justice Institute Monique Morris; film producer Will Packer; Executive Director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance Ai-jen Poo; former White House National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice; Los Angeles Clippers Head Coach Doc Rivers; Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony Romero; Warner Bros. Chairman and CEO Kevin Tsujihara; Founder and CEO of Define American Jose Antonio Vargas; actor and producer Kerry Washington, former White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett; Chief Diversity Office of Perkins Coie LLP Theresa Cropper; and 25-time Grammy Award-winner and world activist Stevie Wonder, among others. CAA is a global company of diverse individuals, whose mission is to identify, create, and expand opportunities for the people who shape culture and inspire the world. The agency works with the world’s premier entertainers and athletes, leaders in politics and policy, Nobel Prize Laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and many other of today’s foremost thinkers and change agents. # # # ABOUT CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY (CAA) Leading entertainment and sports agency Creative Artists Agency (CAA) represents many of the most successful and innovative professionals working in film, television, music, video games, theatre, and digital content, and provides a range of strategic marketing and consulting services to corporate clients. CAA is also a leader in sports, representing more than 1,000 of the world’s top athletes in football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, and golf, and works in the areas of broadcast rights, corporate marketing initiatives, licensing, and sports properties for sales and sponsorship opportunities. For more information, please contact: Beth McClinton Creative Artists Agency (CAA) 424.288.2247 Beth.McClinton@caa.com

OK Del, so I'm only a numerical illiterate, cool (shhh, don't tell that to my math students). You are approaching this the wrong way, from my perspective. If I'm a numerical illerate, then, by extension, so is the global scientific community. They have access to all the graphs you've shared and so much more. Your disagreement is not with me--because I don't claim to be able to prove a thing. Your disagreement is with all of them. They have collected an overwhelming amount of evidence to show to a high degree of certainty, that climate change has accelerated due to man's efforts. Nothing on your two graphs can disprove this. Again, it is not just me saying this is everyone else (save you, 45, a few other conspiracy theorists, and fossil fuel execs). I just hope folks read the conclusions of the scientific community and vote in politicians that will take action to do something about this problem. Since our impact on the climate can not change on a dime, the climate will definitely get worse before it can get better. Some believe we may have even passed a point a no return. The media have also played a part in our inaction because they have given climate change deniers equal coverage as if this issue was up for debate. This seems to have changed more recently with climate change deniers being relegated to the same category as "Flat-Earthers." So while you never said you know more that all of the scientists who study the climate, your position on climate change suggests otherwise Del, don't you think?

Del you asked if I could read the graphs. I said I could. Now you want to know if I can "interpret" them. I'm sure I can't--at least not to your satisfaction. I simply would not presume to base my understanding of global warming solely on the two graphs you've presented. I already made it abundantly clear that I don't agree with your interpretation. I told you why and gave you details to help you understand why. What else can I possibly write? Interpreting the graph is completely different than understanding statistics. I assume you'd agree that someone with multiple engineering degrees from reputable universities, like myself, has a level of intelligence to understand what you wrote and disagree with it. Why suggest that I'm "numerically illiterate" when you know that can not possibly be the case? Doing this sort of thing I'd think would be beneath you. Again, I ask you, why do you think you know (and 45 for that matter), know more than all of Nasa? It is a level of hubris that escapes me.

@Delano, speaking of "avoiding a direct question" did you answer Mel's question?

Del, As you know I have an MBA and a graduate degree in Engineering, I can read the graphs. I thought that was obvious. Del here is a direct question for you: Why do you think that I would consider the two graphs presented and your simple explanation sufficient proof for me to reject the assessments of NASA, the NOAA, and the consensus of the entire Global scientific community? That is a big ask Bruh. In fact, 45's position on the issue is sufficient for me to believe in man-made climate change.

Hi @Onyeka Stanley, I see you'very shared a few articles to the site: http://sydneyebunuche.blogspot.com what is your relationship with the Blog?

Del, the info quoted below was from the EPA's website. The Trump administration, has pulled it down from the government's websites. Fortunately newspapers across the country have republished it (Boston Globe: http://climatechangedata.boston.gov) they understand how important it is for the public to have this information. Whether the public agrees with it, understands it, or accepts it, is an entirely different matter. I'd encourage you (and others) to visit the Boston Globes site and read the information they've provided. It is very accessible, written in layman's terms: "All major scientific agencies of the United States—including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the Global Change Research Program concluded that "global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."[1] Hundreds of independent and governmental scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and worldwide.[1][2][3]Multiple analyses of peer-reviewed science literature have repeatedly shown that more than 97 percent of scientists in the field agree that the world is unequivocally warming, and that human activity is the primary cause.[3] "

Thanks, @Mel Hopkins , I spent Father's day running around Cleveland with Maya. @Pioneer1 , you can always copulate with a white woman and roll the dice that you'd have a white child. Good white blonde-haired blue-eyed babies are a precious commodity. In the rare instances when they are actually put up for adoption they are quickly scooped up by Hetero couple who are given priority. Gay couples settle for what they can get unless they have money and desire for artificial insemination. Black babies are a dime a dozen... (OK I just made all that up, but it sound plausible doesn't it).

You are on a roll Harry. Another classic. Thanks for continuing to share books.

Ms Ty Unlike King, this man was murdered. Why do you think the public's reaction was so much more muted? Was it because the press coverage was so much less? It felt like the entire Black community stopped to hear the King verdict, but not in this case. Obviously, we saw what happened when the King verdict went south... Can you imagine being in the car when your mate (or father) is shot for absolutely no reason?

Well I have to say I'm surprised were charged with such serious offenses in Flint Michigan case. I have not been following it, but I hope this sends a message and stops administrators from endangering the lives of the public. I have to also say these poor working stiffs pay the price, while Wall Street, Big Tabacco, Fossil Fuel exec, continue to rape (I mean reap) billions of dollars from the public. taking homes, giving people cancer, and polluting the environment. I just heard they plan another trail for Cosby after this mistrial. I thought they gave up after a mistrial...maybe it is the discretion of the judge. I dunno. I guess they will keep up until the man is in jail.

Harry, this is a classic--thanks for the reminder! This book celebrates the "Good Black Men" who are all too forgotten in the mainstream media. Books like these give us reasons to acknowledge these men and removes excuses to take them for granted. Happy Fathers Day!