A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No one and nothing could ever pry Paul Alsing's hands off his Kool-Aid.



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #241  
Old October 2nd 19, 09:44 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old October 2nd 19, 09:56 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
%
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default 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  
Old October 2nd 19, 10:03 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old October 2nd 19, 10:05 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
%
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 12:05 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 01:42 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 01:43 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 01:47 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
%
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 09:35 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 03:03 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 06:46 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 12:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 12:57 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 01:21 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 01:26 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.