"No, he is just an idiot.  You continue to ignore the one big part of why we are here.  It's not that he made a mistake, it's the fact he continue to lie about the mistake.  He lies that the Weather authority stated the path was going to hit Alabama when they did not. When asked about it he double down that they made this statement.  When they corrected his mistake, he altered data to support his lie and continues to try to support a mistake by lying about it.  Its the dumbest, stupidest situation any person could do but here we are."

Okay, now prove it: do you have video footage and tweets that back up your claims or am I to just rely on your word alone? I have news for you: I'm a skeptic, I don't just buy mere hearsay but that's all you've provided in this post: hearsay.

Not wasting my time trying to play your game.  You either followed the whole crap or you did not.  You can do your own digging or you can just blindly go about accepting this crap.  It's up to you but what I will not do is play the game you did on the last thread.  There is plenty of info on this dumb crap.  What I have found is you are quite particular in selecting what you want and ignoring anything that doesn't support your opinion.  Wasting my time digging for you so you can then 20 question me and ignore what you do not like is a worthless task.  

Like I care.  If you can refute what I said then do so but if not then continue blindly following this clown show because no one is believing or following your logic. There are a number of articles chroninaling this entire BS so have fun reading them.  Hell, here is one that details it for you so you

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/fact-check-timeline-of-trumps-alabama-dorian-map-fiasco/index.html

After you finish reading that and dismissing it as I am sure you will, Then ask yourself why 6 days after this clown show began we continue to see more dumb tweets from the President while the storm is hitting NC.  Not only are the tweets stupid because he is using outdated maps 3 days older than his first tweet on Sunday or even worst tropical wind maps showing 5% chance of hitting Alabama but he is too stupid to even understand what they mean and is looking even more of an idiot. 

The bad part for you KLAMarine is trying to set your flag for Trump on this dumb crap.  There is definitely crap Trump gets for being Trump that is BS but this isn't the hill you want to die on for him.  Trump will make a fool out of you as you continue down this path as we like to call it "Save a whoe"

"If you can refute what I said then do so"

>It's like you don't understand what the burden of proof means. It's YOUR job to prove YOUR claims. Your claims, or anyone's claims for that matter, are NOT true by default.

"Let me type something for you again from the very post you quoted. "In tweets, to the press, in the Oval Office."  If you're just looking at tweets, you're only looking at 1/3rd of the incidents."

>Okay then, let's focus on that 1/3 for now. List for me tweets from the president mentioning Alabama.

"The only thing you are a skeptic of is negative information regarding Trump.  But you NEVER show that same skepticism about Trump himself or anything he says."

>Well which of Trump's statements do you feel I should have been more skeptical about? I mean, when Trump says "you see, it was going to hit not only Florida but Georgia. It could have, was going toward the gulf. That was what we, what was originally projected", the "we" part means more than one person. I'm inclined to believe Trump spoke to someone considering he's the president of the United States with an entire presidential administration around him. Is that too farfetched of a belief? That at some point, Trump spoke to someone about the hurricane?

And another thing, Machiavellian made some accusations which were unsubstantiated. I can't not be skeptical about such accusations.

"When you claim that Trump may have talked to someone and that's why he used the word "we", that needs evidence."

Two things:

1. The word 'may' is important here. This statement is speculative so it may be true or not true. Trump may have spoken to someone and is it a crazy notion that Trump spoke to someone at some point? The man has an entire administration around him.

2. The president's use of the word "we" IS evidence that he may have talked to someone. It's certainly not proof but it is certainly evidence. I trust you understand the difference.

Unknown defense? What are you talking about?

Skepticism is the expression of doubt over information presented to an individual. This position rejects the idea of inference, where an individual makes a conclusion from disparate information on a topic, without direct evidence, given the set of curcumstances. Inference is real and useful as a logical tool and is used every day in so many fields like medicine, law and others, where you dont always have the luxury of evidence, but  the problem needs to be solved. Disciplined inference is about doing your best to construct an understanding of the situation using the limited evidence you have, which is what the majority of life is like anyway. 

You have certainly shown skepticism on many topics here, like doubting claims (from individual users to news publications) on Trump even mentioning Alabama in this ongoing story. However, that skepticism is not being consistently applied. You are instead applying inference, to construct the conclusion that Trump likely had a conversation with someone in his administration about the topic. While I personally agree that yes, that is a reasonable conclusion, it is the opposite of skepticism.

Looks like the NOAA has issued a statement: https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

"From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link."

Clicking on link above, we are lead to https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120

Most dramatic of images provided looks like this:

Alabama most definitely looks to be potentially affected.

NOAA's statements goes on:

"The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

Sounds like they reject what NWSBirmingham had to say in their tweet citing it "spoke in absolute terms".

I believe the tweet this speaks of is the following:

Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east. #alwx

— NWS Birmingham (@NWSBirmingham) September 1, 2019

I figure speaking in absolute terms when it comes to weather events is something best avoided hence we have probability maps like above...

Inference is the opposite of skepticism? I don't think so: you can certainly make use of inference and still be skeptical as long as you acknowledge the probability you may be wrong in your inference.

I've always thought of gullibility as being the opposite of skepticism: you believe anything without question.

What we're talking about is the burden of proof needed to make a conclusion. You are using skepticism to outright reject claims made by others, before giving inference a chance first. Conversely, on other topics (such as the reasoning behind Trump's actions), you are using inference to make your own conclusions first, with the caveat of skepticism as a fall-back plan in case it turns out to be wrong. These are very different things.

Gullibility refers to when someone is unable to find a reasonable balance between these two ends of the scale and accepts information without substantial critical thinking. Similarly, one can unreasonably reject information without applying such critical thinking first. Skepticism and inference are not black-and-white opposites, but represent a continuum of different choices when presented with information. The point is that the choices you are making when presented with information, are inconsistent, despite your claim that you are unanimously "skeptical".

"You are using skepticism to outright reject claims made by others, before giving inference a chance first."

>So if there were claims I rejected without giving inference a shot, which would you point to?