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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/2/19 12:12 PM, % wrote:
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 Not snorting it? -- 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. |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 2019-10-02 1:44 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/2/19 12:12 PM, % wrote: 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 Not snorting it? small potatoes i past that phase in my rookie years , now i'm constantly plugged in |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/2/19 1:56 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-02 1:44 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 12:12 PM, % wrote: 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. 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 Not snorting it? small potatoes i past that phase in my rookie years , now i'm constantly plugged in Seems like something you are doing in vain. -- 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. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 2019-10-02 2:03 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/2/19 1:56 PM, % wrote: On 2019-10-02 1:44 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 12:12 PM, % wrote: 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. 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 Not snorting it? small potatoes i past that phase in my rookie years , now i'm constantly plugged in Seems like something you are doing in vain. i like a direct line to the situation , no fooling around with this and that , just get to the point |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/2/19 4:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, chrisv wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread) Global warming is not "unsupported". Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. And you have been shown evidence. Heck, the "hockey stick" graph is one of the most famous and most heavily peer reviewed studies in history. The fact you did not even know of it, or thought some whackos denouncing it somehow was relevant, does not weaken it in any way. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong (it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And you keep pushing it. Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. -- 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. |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/2/19 2:05 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-02 2:03 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 1:56 PM, % wrote: On 2019-10-02 1:44 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 12:12 PM, % wrote: 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. 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 Not snorting it? small potatoes i past that phase in my rookie years , now i'm constantly plugged in Seems like something you are doing in vain. i like a direct line to the situation , no fooling around with this and that , just get to the point I knew you were going to inject something like that into the conversation. -- 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. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 2019-10-02 5:43 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/2/19 2:05 PM, % wrote: On 2019-10-02 2:03 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 1:56 PM, % wrote: On 2019-10-02 1:44 p.m., Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 12:12 PM, % wrote: 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. 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 Not snorting it? small potatoes i past that phase in my rookie years , now i'm constantly plugged in Seems like something you are doing in vain. i like a direct line to the situation , no fooling around with this and that , just get to the point I knew you were going to inject something like that into the conversation. it adds a constant drip to things |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit
wrote: On 10/2/19 4:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. And you have been shown evidence. Heck, the "hockey stick" graph is one of the most famous and most heavily peer reviewed studies in history. The fact you did not even know of it, or thought some whackos denouncing it somehow was relevant, does not weaken it in any way. Not know of it? I probably know more than you. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0 I bet you will slide away from that too. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht I bet you won't read that either. Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong (it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And you keep pushing it. Which source is a lie? Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. -- 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. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 4:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. And you have been shown evidence. Heck, the "hockey stick" graph is one of the most famous and most heavily peer reviewed studies in history. The fact you did not even know of it, or thought some whackos denouncing it somehow was relevant, does not weaken it in any way. Not know of it? I probably know more than you. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0 You showed that silliness before and we talked about why your sources and your claims are absurd. In short: you use debunked sources which are not from peer reviewed journals and which ignore the greater body of work, they -- like you -- hand pick data to try to make it look bad. They are simply failing to make the point you want them to. And when you stretch out, you repeatedly pick others from the SAME set of about 70 scientists who have rejected the consensus accepted by tens of thousands of others. You are walking example of confirmation bias. Great. That is your only point -- but at least you make it often! I bet you will slide away from that too. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht I bet you won't read that either. Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over. Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge about SCIENCE? Oh. Because you seek to DENY science. Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong (it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And you keep pushing it. Which source is a lie? In short: YOU. You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push your anti-science agenda. Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. -- 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. |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht It is an interesting thesis which is backed up by selected quotes. It is worth highlighting that nowhere does he point out the flaws (if any) in climate science research. He alleges there's some noble cause corruption yet without any evidence of it actually occurring. Then there's the whole leftist agenda conspiracy theory... His analogy to the police is fine except we have many, many (historical) examples of police being guilty of NCC - the Birmingham six case in the UK for example - yet none for climate science. There's no one saying "i know my methodology is deeply flawed, but, hey I'm saving the planet. That's what matters, right?" The police convictions only need a little scrutiny and they fall apart. Climate science is heavily scrutinised and doesn't fall apart. The author may be a very eminent physicist, but I'm not falling for the argument from authority bias here. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:03:59 -0700, Snit
wrote: On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 4:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. And you have been shown evidence. Heck, the "hockey stick" graph is one of the most famous and most heavily peer reviewed studies in history. The fact you did not even know of it, or thought some whackos denouncing it somehow was relevant, does not weaken it in any way. Not know of it? I probably know more than you. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0 You showed that silliness before and we talked about why your sources and your claims are absurd. In short: you use debunked sources which are not from peer reviewed journals and which ignore the greater body of work, they -- like you -- hand pick data to try to make it look bad. They are simply failing to make the point you want them to. And when you stretch out, you repeatedly pick others from the SAME set of about 70 scientists who have rejected the consensus accepted by tens of thousands of others. You are walking example of confirmation bias. Great. That is your only point -- but at least you make it often! I bet you will slide away from that too. I was right. You have slid away. Do you realise that the reason the names of those scientist have been put into a list is because they make life difficult for people like you. Fancy trying to black list Freeman Dyson! Your use of the list says much more about you than it does about them. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht I bet you won't read that either. Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over. Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge about SCIENCE? Oh. Because you seek to DENY science. What starnge mental process is it that makes you think knowledge is rendered scientific (or not) by the site it is published on? It is a very peculiar, but not uncommon, view of things. If you want to relate the two it makes much better sense to say that a site is rendered scientific (or not) by the knowledge it publishes. Innuendos, unsupported opinions and personal attacks do not make the grade. Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong (it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And you keep pushing it. Which source is a lie? In short: YOU. You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push your anti-science agenda. I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done so. Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. Your name is not Ozymandius, but ... -- 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. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:46:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht It is an interesting thesis which is backed up by selected quotes. It is worth highlighting that nowhere does he point out the flaws (if any) in climate science research. He alleges there's some noble cause corruption yet without any evidence of it actually occurring. Then there's the whole leftist agenda conspiracy theory... His analogy to the police is fine except we have many, many (historical) examples of police being guilty of NCC - the Birmingham six case in the UK for example - yet none for climate science. There's no one saying "i know my methodology is deeply flawed, but, hey I'm saving the planet. That's what matters, right?" The police convictions only need a little scrutiny and they fall apart. Climate science is heavily scrutinised and doesn't fall apart. The author may be a very eminent physicist, but I'm not falling for the argument from authority bias here. At least you read it, and replied. That makes you stand out from the crowd. Thank you. -- 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. |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/3/19 4:57 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:46:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht It is an interesting thesis which is backed up by selected quotes. It is worth highlighting that nowhere does he point out the flaws (if any) in climate science research. He alleges there's some noble cause corruption yet without any evidence of it actually occurring. Then there's the whole leftist agenda conspiracy theory... His analogy to the police is fine except we have many, many (historical) examples of police being guilty of NCC - the Birmingham six case in the UK for example - yet none for climate science. There's no one saying "i know my methodology is deeply flawed, but, hey I'm saving the planet. That's what matters, right?" The police convictions only need a little scrutiny and they fall apart. Climate science is heavily scrutinised and doesn't fall apart. The author may be a very eminent physicist, but I'm not falling for the argument from authority bias here. At least you read it, and replied. That makes you stand out from the crowd. Thank you. Multiple people, including myself, have read your nonsense and your links to nonsense. That is how we know it is nonsense. So the question is if YOU have read it and can tell it is utter nonsense? So far you claim no. -- 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. |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Seattle used to be under a glacier.
On 10/3/19 4:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:03:59 -0700, Snit wrote: On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit wrote: On 10/2/19 4:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, 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*. You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out. Here is where it started: --------------------------- Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way of life changed forever, however. They always do. Not at this current rapid timescale. A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always seem to "forget". Please give me data. ----------------------------------- Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale" was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical. And you have been shown evidence. Heck, the "hockey stick" graph is one of the most famous and most heavily peer reviewed studies in history. The fact you did not even know of it, or thought some whackos denouncing it somehow was relevant, does not weaken it in any way. Not know of it? I probably know more than you. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0 You showed that silliness before and we talked about why your sources and your claims are absurd. In short: you use debunked sources which are not from peer reviewed journals and which ignore the greater body of work, they -- like you -- hand pick data to try to make it look bad. They are simply failing to make the point you want them to. And when you stretch out, you repeatedly pick others from the SAME set of about 70 scientists who have rejected the consensus accepted by tens of thousands of others. You are walking example of confirmation bias. Great. That is your only point -- but at least you make it often! I bet you will slide away from that too. I was right. You have slid away. Do you realise that the reason the names of those scientist have been put into a list is because they make life difficult for people like you. Fancy trying to black list Freeman Dyson! Your use of the list says much more about you than it does about them. You can cry about the list all you want -- what it proves is you are hand picking from a VERY small number of scientists, most of them heavily debunked, to push your confirmation bias. I, on the other hand, am looking at the broader evidence, and siding with the tens of thousands of scientists who also have looked at the broader evidence. But consensus is not proof -- if you come up with a better theory to explain the observations then by all means I back you in sending it in to peer reviewed journals. Hell, post it here. But so far you have nothing but parroting nonsense. Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the one and only planet, that we have." You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And, unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are contained in the document. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/ or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht I bet you won't read that either. Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over. Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge about SCIENCE? Oh. Because you seek to DENY science. What starnge mental process is it that makes you think knowledge is rendered scientific (or not) by the site it is published on? It is a very peculiar, but not uncommon, view of things. If you want to relate the two it makes much better sense to say that a site is rendered scientific (or not) by the knowledge it publishes. Innuendos, unsupported opinions and personal attacks do not make the grade. You seek out knowledge of science on non-scientific sites which are heavily debunked. I seek out knowledge of science on actual scientific sites which promote knowledge backed by evidence. You think you are doing right. I think I am. So be it. Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong (it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And you keep pushing it. Which source is a lie? In short: YOU. You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push your anti-science agenda. I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done so. I have. Repeatedly. For example noting the hand-picking of a subset of data as you ignore the larger picture. And more. But these things, it seems, go over your head. Again, so be it. Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy. Your name is not Ozymandius, but ... -- 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|