If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 01/10/19 09:16, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit wrote: You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence. So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable. Fair enough. As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this page, for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind. Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait 200years and take equivalent ice cores then? Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can you tell me why? False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never. His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands of other scientists have largely agreed on. Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop out. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/ This is an extreme denier website. No reputable scientist is going to publish there. When he publishes in a reputable journal I'd read what he had to say. -- Un chien andalu-sia |
Ads |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
Eric Stevens wrote:
chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs. (rolling eyes) -- "People love to demonize McCarthy, but he did something which needed to be done and which should have continued to this day." - "Slimer", AKA "Rabid Robot", right-winger |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/1/19 1:16 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit wrote: You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence. So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable. Fair enough. As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this page, for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind. Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait 200years and take equivalent ice cores then? Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can you tell me why? False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never. His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands of other scientists have largely agreed on. Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop out. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/ You said you were done replying to me. You lied. Not a surprise. But now you run to WUWT, a blog pushing ANTI-SCIENCE. Yeah, you are really amazing at picking winners. LOL! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F ----- Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3] ----- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/ ----- CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE .... Factual Reporting: LOW .... Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human influenced climate denialism propaganda. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 9/26/2019) ----- https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm ----- Climate Misinformation by Source: Anthony Watts Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog Watts Up With That. He founded surfacestations.org, which questions the reliability of the surface temperature record. Typically more than half of Watts' live presentations feature photos of poorly sited weather stations. However, the surface temperature record is one line of evidence among thousands of lines of evidence for global warming. Ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, thousands of species are migrating, seasons are shifting, local populations of species are going extinct. As for the temperature record, warming is also being observed over the ocean, well away from urban heat island and microsite influences. Lastly, satellite measurements independently find the same warming trend as the surface record, leading prominent skeptic Roy Spencer (head of the UAH satellite team) to conclude about the HadCRUT surface record, "Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we're not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway". The full body of evidence presents a consistent and overwhelming picture of global warming. Anthony Watts' critique of the surface temperature record is an attempt to distract from this larger picture. ----- Much more at the link. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts ----- Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1] ----- Before you said you went to original sources... but now all you can do is find a whacko blog. LOL! Really, you are just funny! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs. (rolling eyes) -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/1/19 8:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. There is "dispute" about everything, because some yahoo can deny anything. People insist the Earth is flat, for example, or they deny well accepted and supported climate science. They are, of course, being deeply irrational. You, for example, continually hand-pick the least reliable sources you can to try to "back" your ignorance. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Nope. The vast majority of scientists believe the consensus BECAUSE of the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is why those who deny the science, such as yourself, feel the need to run to the same 70 or so debunked deniers or non-scientific sites like WUWT. You have NOTHING to back your denial. But let us say you did. Say you were able to publish a paper that explained the observations as well or better than the established science but had a different conclusion. WOW! You would have fame and fortune. The incentive to do this is extreme. So why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone? Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. The experts also agree the Earth is (mostly) spherical. You are trying to pretend that we should deny it BECAUSE it is well backed. It is utter rubbish. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. You have spent time trying to find a counter. And failed. You resort to going to the same list of 70 debunked deniers that other deniers go to. You look at that hand-picked list and trust them over the tens of thousands who peer review the science. You are being irrational. Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs. (rolling eyes) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 2019-10-01 8:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup. It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts. Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs. (rolling eyes) i prefer to do whatever the fk i please without any opinions so i do |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:01:51 -0400, Paul
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit wrote: You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence. So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable. Fair enough. As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this page, for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind. Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait 200years and take equivalent ice cores then? Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can you tell me why? False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never. His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands of other scientists have largely agreed on. Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop out. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/ But that's using a steady state analysis, as a reassurance we won't have a problem caused by a *sharp transient*. The melting tundra is going to increase the slope of the pCO2. And make things worse. It's the transient behavior we have to worry about, within (your) lifetime. Not really. The mass flow of CO2 in the carbon cycle makes an unusually large annual fire of no importance. Volcanoes fire out irregular bursts of much larger quantities of CO2. Imagine everyone in China and India, buys an air conditioner. That's part of the reason China is estimating the construction of fifty 4GB coal powered generating plants. And that, of course, will have no impact at all. It will, but not one I would worry about. After all, nature has already absorbed an estimated 50% of the excess CO2 generated by man in the last 50 years. Thats why the planet has greened by an estimated 14%~20% since the start of satellite monitoring. Back in the eeoocene, there weren't 2 billion people buying air conditioners. The response of the humans, *accelerates* the pCO2 curve. It's the near term result of that, which matters. Are you arguing for some kind of spike response to a transient? I'm not aware that there is room for such a thing in the current theories. I don't really care that 10,000 years from now, "everything is just peachy". What if in the process of the transient behavior, humans are wiped out ? Would you care ? Probably not. "I'll be dead by then, so it won't matter." If my house were to catch fire, I would sit in my Lazy Boy in the living room, drink a beer, and note that "it's only in the kitchen right now, I have plenty of time". "It's only in the hall right now, I still have time for another beer." This seems a perfectly reasonable response to a fire. What could go wrong ? "10,000 years from now, someone will have built another house." If we pick our plot points on the graph-of-life carefully, we can be pretty smug about things. Even if you don't know the actual details, examination of the history of the earth will show that its environment is substantially homeostatic. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:23:28 +0100, Lothar DeBaser
wrote: On 01/10/19 09:16, Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit wrote: You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence. So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable. Fair enough. As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this page, for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind. Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait 200years and take equivalent ice cores then? Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can you tell me why? False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never. His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands of other scientists have largely agreed on. Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop out. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/ This is an extreme denier website. No reputable scientist is going to publish there. When he publishes in a reputable journal I'd read what he had to say. You say it is a denier website because it publishes opinions contrary to your beliefs. Therefore you do not read it. Therefore your beliefs are not challenged. You are in fact tearing up the message because you do not like the messenger. If you do read a message on Watts Up With That, you should also read the comments. They will very quickly tell you if anything is wrong with the message. You don't get that on most sites. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 2019-10-01 8:47 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/1/19 8:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. There is "dispute" about everything, because some yahoo can deny anything. People insist the Earth is flat, for example, or they deny well accepted and supported climate science. They are, of course, being deeply irrational. You, for example, continually hand-pick the least reliable sources you can to try to "back" your ignorance. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Nope. The vast majority of scientists believe the consensus BECAUSE of the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is why those who deny the science, such as yourself, feel the need to run to the same 70 or so debunked deniers or non-scientific sites like WUWT. You have NOTHING to back your denial. But let us say you did. Say you were able to publish a paper that explained the observations as well or better than the established science but had a different conclusion. WOW! You would have fame and fortune. The incentive to do this is extreme. So why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone? Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. The experts also agree the Earth is (mostly) spherical. You are trying to pretend that we should deny it BECAUSE it is well backed. It is utter rubbish. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. You have spent time trying to find a counter. And failed. You resort to going to the same list of 70 debunked deniers that other deniers go to. You look at that hand-picked list and trust them over the tens of thousands who peer review the science. You are being irrational. Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes) you got eye rolled |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/1/19 8:56 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-01 8:47 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/1/19 8:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. There is "dispute" about everything, because some yahoo can deny anything. People insist the Earth is flat, for example, or they deny well accepted and supported climate science. They are, of course, being deeply irrational. You, for example, continually hand-pick the least reliable sources you can to try to "back" your ignorance. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Nope. The vast majority of scientists believe the consensus BECAUSE of the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is why those who deny the science, such as yourself, feel the need to run to the same 70 or so debunked deniers or non-scientific sites like WUWT. You have NOTHING to back your denial. But let us say you did. Say you were able to publish a paper that explained the observations as well or better than the established science but had a different conclusion. WOW! You would have fame and fortune. The incentive to do this is extreme. So why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone? Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. The experts also agree the Earth is (mostly) spherical. You are trying to pretend that we should deny it BECAUSE it is well backed. It is utter rubbish. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. You have spent time trying to find a counter. And failed. You resort to going to the same list of 70 debunked deniers that other deniers go to. You look at that hand-picked list and trust them over the tens of thousands who peer review the science. You are being irrational. Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes) you got eye rolled I prefer egg rolls. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/1/19 8:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:23:28 +0100, Lothar DeBaser wrote: On 01/10/19 09:16, Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit wrote: On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit wrote: You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence. So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable. Fair enough. As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this page, for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind. Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait 200years and take equivalent ice cores then? Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can you tell me why? False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never. His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands of other scientists have largely agreed on. Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop out. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/ This is an extreme denier website. No reputable scientist is going to publish there. When he publishes in a reputable journal I'd read what he had to say. You say it is a denier website because it publishes opinions contrary to your beliefs. Nope. I note it is a whacko site based on denying science because of the EVIDENCE. And I posted some of that evidence to you before. See: you just reject evidence. You have nothing but the list of 70 scientists out of tens of thousands and some whacko sites. Therefore you do not read it. I did. And it was rubbish. As noted. I even went into some of its errors, such as how it hand-picks data and ignores the larger picture. Like you do. Therefore your beliefs are not challenged. You are in fact tearing up the message because you do not like the messenger. The fact you are an ignorant denier who is proud to know less than most children does not mean I ignore all of your messages. I give you chance after chance -- and am amused by you. If you do read a message on Watts Up With That, you should also read the comments. They will very quickly tell you if anything is wrong with the message. You don't get that on most sites. You pointed to a silly science denial blog and think it carries more weight than peer reviewed journals. And then you ignore how your silly site was debunked. You are a walking warning about confirmation bias. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/1/19 8:48 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-01 8:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes) i prefer to do whatever the fk i please without any opinions so i do I prefer to eat cheesecake. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
Eric Stevens wrote:
I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread) Global warming is not "unsupported". Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. -- "you're changing your position and pretending that you knew." - "Slimer", lying shamelessly |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/2/19 4:40 AM, chrisv wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote: I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread) Global warming is not "unsupported". Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. Agreed. And keep in mind Eric Stevens has NOTHING to back his denial. If he did he could write a paper and get fame and fortune. Instead, he refers to whacko denial blogs and heavily refuted deniers from a list of about 70. He ignores the tens of thousands of scientists who side with the evidence and, more importantly, the evidence itself. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 2019-10-01 9:05 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/1/19 8:48 PM, % wrote: On 2019-10-01 8:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:10 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: chrisv wrote: These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's scientists, you know. Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to "prove the case" in a usenet newsgroup.Â* It's a classic right-wing propaganda tactic, to suggest that we should be able to. I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, especially if they are about a matter over which there is some dispute. Asking for supporting data is not the same as asking for proof. Sometimes it makes sense to trust the consensus of the experts.Â* Take a look around, at the recent FACTS regarding weather events, and there's no reason to disbelieve what the experts are saying. The trouble is that this can become a circular argument. You believe so and so is an expert because he says what you believe to the case. Then you find your belief is affirmed because people who you believe to be experts tell you that such and such is the case. The only way to avoid being trapped in such a loop is to ask why the expert believes such and such. And, no; holding a belief because another 'expert' says so is not sufficient. I can't be an expert on every fscking topic in the world, and the typical stupid, selfish, ignorant, science-denying right-winger is worse than I am! You should always receive information/opinions about those topics with a grain of caution. The conclusions may or may not be correct. Oh wait, that's right.Â* They must lie their asses off, lest they lose their jobs.Â* (rolling eyes) i prefer to do whatever the fk i please without any opinions so i do I prefer to eat cheesecake. i take that intravenously |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|