quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
since we all define ourselves, call yourself what you wish. Since I come down on the side of the skeptics on the other side, I'll go with that.

No, no, no, I can't say this strongly enough NO. Skepticism isn't a position, it isn't a side, skepticism is a toolkit. Skepticism isn't a conclusion it's the method used to get there. You can take any side under the sun you're shitty thought process and lack of curiosity firmly prevent you from being a skeptic.

Yes, and skepticism about the non-flat earth we would all agree is idiotic. Ditto the Apollo moon landing. Ditto creationism/intelligent design.

The issue is that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and when you look at historical records of the Earth's climate going back millions of years, you find that global warming and cooling occurred for a variety of reasons and that we are dealing with a massively complex system that we cannot still adequately model. To lump skeptics in here with any of the foregoing positions is disingenuous. You cannot find legitimate scientists who advocate the foregoing. I already provided a link to a report featuring over 700 scientists involved in the UN report but not involved in writing it. There are real, legitimate issues here. Moreover, predictions have proved not to be true. Whether you are a logical positivist or not, Popper's Falsifiability Criterion has been met by predictions and the predictions have been far off base. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Now, go ahead and disagree -- many scientists do support anthropogenic global warming. Some of them have better arguments than others. The same is true for those who reject it. Truth is determined by reality not by the majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
since we all define ourselves, call yourself what you wish. Since I come down on the side of the skeptics on the other side, I'll go with that.

No, no, no, I can't say this strongly enough NO. Skepticism isn't a position, it isn't a side, skepticism is a toolkit. Skepticism isn't a conclusion it's the method used to get there. You can take any side under the sun you're shitty thought process and lack of curiosity firmly prevent you from being a skeptic.

Yes, and skepticism about the non-flat earth we would all agree is idiotic. Ditto the Apollo moon landing. Ditto creationism/intelligent design.

The issue is that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and when you look at historical records of the Earth's climate going back millions of years, you find that global warming and cooling occurred for a variety of reasons and that we are dealing with a massively complex system that we cannot still adequately model. To lump skeptics in here with any of the foregoing positions is disingenuous. You cannot find legitimate scientists who advocate the foregoing. I already provided a link to a report featuring over 700 scientists involved in the UN report but not involved in writing it. There are real, legitimate issues here. Moreover, predictions have proved not to be true. Whether you are a logical positivist or not, Popper's Falsifiability Criterion has been met by predictions and the predictions have been far off base. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Now, go ahead and disagree -- many scientists do support anthropogenic global warming. Some of them have better arguments than others. The same is true for those who reject it. Truth is determined by reality not by the majority.

No, you did not. As has been already point out to you once that list is not what it is portrayed as. Why do you continue to present it as if it hasn't already been debunked?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4729800

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
since we all define ourselves, call yourself what you wish. Since I come down on the side of the skeptics on the other side, I'll go with that.

No, no, no, I can't say this strongly enough NO. Skepticism isn't a position, it isn't a side, skepticism is a toolkit. Skepticism isn't a conclusion it's the method used to get there. You can take any side under the sun you're shitty thought process and lack of curiosity firmly prevent you from being a skeptic.

Yes, and skepticism about the non-flat earth we would all agree is idiotic. Ditto the Apollo moon landing. Ditto creationism/intelligent design.

The issue is that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and when you look at historical records of the Earth's climate going back millions of years, you find that global warming and cooling occurred for a variety of reasons and that we are dealing with a massively complex system that we cannot still adequately model. To lump skeptics in here with any of the foregoing positions is disingenuous. You cannot find legitimate scientists who advocate the foregoing. I already provided a link to a report featuring over 700 scientists involved in the UN report but not involved in writing it. There are real, legitimate issues here. Moreover, predictions have proved not to be true. Whether you are a logical positivist or not, Popper's Falsifiability Criterion has been met by predictions and the predictions have been far off base. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Now, go ahead and disagree -- many scientists do support anthropogenic global warming. Some of them have better arguments than others. The same is true for those who reject it. Truth is determined by reality not by the majority.

No, you did not. As has been already point out to you once that list is not what it is portrayed as. Why do you continue to present it as if it hasn't already been debunked?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4729800

Much like the 97% consensus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
since we all define ourselves, call yourself what you wish. Since I come down on the side of the skeptics on the other side, I'll go with that.

No, no, no, I can't say this strongly enough NO. Skepticism isn't a position, it isn't a side, skepticism is a toolkit. Skepticism isn't a conclusion it's the method used to get there. You can take any side under the sun you're shitty thought process and lack of curiosity firmly prevent you from being a skeptic.

Yes, and skepticism about the non-flat earth we would all agree is idiotic. Ditto the Apollo moon landing. Ditto creationism/intelligent design.

The issue is that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and when you look at historical records of the Earth's climate going back millions of years, you find that global warming and cooling occurred for a variety of reasons and that we are dealing with a massively complex system that we cannot still adequately model. To lump skeptics in here with any of the foregoing positions is disingenuous. You cannot find legitimate scientists who advocate the foregoing. I already provided a link to a report featuring over 700 scientists involved in the UN report but not involved in writing it. There are real, legitimate issues here. Moreover, predictions have proved not to be true. Whether you are a logical positivist or not, Popper's Falsifiability Criterion has been met by predictions and the predictions have been far off base. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Now, go ahead and disagree -- many scientists do support anthropogenic global warming. Some of them have better arguments than others. The same is true for those who reject it. Truth is determined by reality not by the majority.

No, you did not. As has been already point out to you once that list is not what it is portrayed as. Why do you continue to present it as if it hasn't already been debunked?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4729800

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
at which point I explained that animals were around before we started raising them for food.

At which point I was disgusted with you. I know you aren't mentally retarded please stop acting like you are. Ken knows full well that animals predate people as such that obvious fact isn't going to debunk his position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You don't think animals were around before humans?

That's nothing like what he's claiming. Since your level of ignorance on this topic is so profound that you can't find your ass with both hands please go bounce a ball and leave smart people to deal with science classes.

His claim was "The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity." When I called bullshit on that and pointed out that even animal farts can contribute to it, he claimed "Raising animals for human consumption is human activity." at which point I explained that animals were around before we started raising them for food. Now there are a lot of things that contribute to global weather change and man is one of those. But to claim that is the only factor is pure stupidity.

Then find a cause. Any one at all. But you best hurry up because the real scientists say we're rapidly approaching a tipping point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Sure. right after you explain why there was change before man showed up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
since we all define ourselves, call yourself what you wish. Since I come down on the side of the skeptics on the other side, I'll go with that.

No, no, no, I can't say this strongly enough NO. Skepticism isn't a position, it isn't a side, skepticism is a toolkit. Skepticism isn't a conclusion it's the method used to get there. You can take any side under the sun you're shitty thought process and lack of curiosity firmly prevent you from being a skeptic.

Yes, and skepticism about the non-flat earth we would all agree is idiotic. Ditto the Apollo moon landing. Ditto creationism/intelligent design.

The issue is that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and when you look at historical records of the Earth's climate going back millions of years, you find that global warming and cooling occurred for a variety of reasons and that we are dealing with a massively complex system that we cannot still adequately model. To lump skeptics in here with any of the foregoing positions is disingenuous. You cannot find legitimate scientists who advocate the foregoing. I already provided a link to a report featuring over 700 scientists involved in the UN report but not involved in writing it. There are real, legitimate issues here. Moreover, predictions have proved not to be true. Whether you are a logical positivist or not, Popper's Falsifiability Criterion has been met by predictions and the predictions have been far off base. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Now, go ahead and disagree -- many scientists do support anthropogenic global warming. Some of them have better arguments than others. The same is true for those who reject it. Truth is determined by reality not by the majority.

No, you did not. As has been already point out to you once that list is not what it is portrayed as. Why do you continue to present it as if it hasn't already been debunked?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4729800

Much like the 97% consensus?

Do you really want me to go into all the reasons the fake debunkings are wrong? Or can I just post a few links?
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-taylor-caught-doctoring-97.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Your debunking has been debunked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

All NASA did was coalesce what the groups are saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
since we all define ourselves, call yourself what you wish. Since I come down on the side of the skeptics on the other side, I'll go with that.

No, no, no, I can't say this strongly enough NO. Skepticism isn't a position, it isn't a side, skepticism is a toolkit. Skepticism isn't a conclusion it's the method used to get there. You can take any side under the sun you're shitty thought process and lack of curiosity firmly prevent you from being a skeptic.

Yes, and skepticism about the non-flat earth we would all agree is idiotic. Ditto the Apollo moon landing. Ditto creationism/intelligent design.

The issue is that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and when you look at historical records of the Earth's climate going back millions of years, you find that global warming and cooling occurred for a variety of reasons and that we are dealing with a massively complex system that we cannot still adequately model. To lump skeptics in here with any of the foregoing positions is disingenuous. You cannot find legitimate scientists who advocate the foregoing. I already provided a link to a report featuring over 700 scientists involved in the UN report but not involved in writing it. There are real, legitimate issues here. Moreover, predictions have proved not to be true. Whether you are a logical positivist or not, Popper's Falsifiability Criterion has been met by predictions and the predictions have been far off base. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Now, go ahead and disagree -- many scientists do support anthropogenic global warming. Some of them have better arguments than others. The same is true for those who reject it. Truth is determined by reality not by the majority.

No, you did not. As has been already point out to you once that list is not what it is portrayed as. Why do you continue to present it as if it hasn't already been debunked?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4729800

Your debunking has been debunked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You don't think animals were around before humans?

That's nothing like what he's claiming. Since your level of ignorance on this topic is so profound that you can't find your ass with both hands please go bounce a ball and leave smart people to deal with science classes.

His claim was "The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity." When I called bullshit on that and pointed out that even animal farts can contribute to it, he claimed "Raising animals for human consumption is human activity." at which point I explained that animals were around before we started raising them for food. Now there are a lot of things that contribute to global weather change and man is one of those. But to claim that is the only factor is pure stupidity.

Then find a cause. Any one at all. But you best hurry up because the real scientists say we're rapidly approaching a tipping point.

Sure. right after you explain why there was change before man showed up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

All NASA did was coalesce what the groups are saying.

When did consensus become part of the scientific method? Is that part of Common Core?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:


Do you really want me to go into all the reasons the fake debunkings are wrong? Or can I just post a few links?
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-taylor-caught-doctoring-97.html

So...debunking by an alarmist with his very own blog.

And an article on a website run by a PBS guy with statements by various scientists, including the repetition of the 97% consensus. Except that there's nothing to prove that it was not wrong or deliberately mis-stated nor that the scientists who stated that interpretation of their papers' findings was wrong or that the question used was meaningless.

Another thing to note: in the article on PBSguy's site, they keep mentioning how the "bogus" science groups are funded by the Kochs and various energy groups such as Exxon, while failing to note the bankrollers behind their own groups such as U.C.S. (hint...it's not running on a shoestring)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

All NASA did was coalesce what the groups are saying.

When did consensus become part of the scientific method? Is that part of Common Core?

Consensus has always been part of science. When a theory convinces most of the scientists in the field then it is accepted as the operative theory until contrary data comes along or a better explanation is come up with. That is how science works.

In the case we're discussing there is no contrary evidence nor is there a better explanation therefore the vast majority of scientists accept AGW as the correct theory. If you want to go down in the history books find the data that over turns it or better explains it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

All NASA did was coalesce what the groups are saying.

When did consensus become part of the scientific method? Is that part of Common Core?

Consensus has always been part of science. When a theory convinces most of the scientists in the field then it is accepted as the operative theory until contrary data comes along or a better explanation is come up with. That is how science works.

In the case we're discussing there is no contrary evidence nor is there a better explanation therefore the vast majority of scientists accept AGW as the correct theory. If you want to go down in the history books find the data that over turns it or better explains it.

Interesting. Ya see the scientific method I was taught goes like this:


Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Ya see, you communicate your results so that other people can repeat your test. I do not see consensus anywhere there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Union of Concerned Scientists? Why did you bring those nuts into this?

James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors... The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by faculty and students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology... One of the co-founders was physicist and Nobel laureate Dr. Henry Kendall... The group supports deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, as well as national and international action to combat climate change... The UCS has been criticized by conservative, libertarian and right-wing groups for being "left-wing" and "liberal". ~Wikipedia

Glad to see you working a little humor into your act. [:)]

K.