Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,903 Views)
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Wow are we lucky to have Chris back because he is the smartest guy in the whole wide world...

Ad Hom Et Al.... :bounce:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yup, good ol' Chris perfected his spiel years ago, and never varies from it.

He claims a wide knowledge, but as soon as anything doesn't agree with his world view, he shouts it down, never learning anything from the experience.

This one is a classic. He doesn't understand how Deniers consistently cherry pick the data, and when I point it out, then quite obviously I'm not attacking their methods but the person, so he can just ignore the explanation as irrelevant.

It's really a very convenient strategy. If he can't argue with the facts, he can always claim "Ad hom".

I was going to leave, but I may just lurk for a while. I need the entertainment. It will get old fast, but for the moment, it's good for a laugh.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 2 2011, 02:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Aw, jeez. Signed off I see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
As I said, Jim, I need the laughs. I had left because your act got old, but Chris's is so old it's new again. (For a while.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
While I'm at it, let's look at Chris's last bit of hilarity:

In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model[12] for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

This is a good one for Chris. He's always got the same old "previous explanation" to fall back on: The government is out to scam us. and the rest of us are fools for not seeing it. I don't know why he ever went to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

He's got this one covered.The government is out to scam us. and the rest of us are fools for not seeing it.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

Well, Obviously, since we're such fools, the government is going to rob us blind.

In the case of Climate Change, if Chis's theory is correct, it would be obvious to everyone that (a)temps have not risen, that (b) the Arctic is not melting, (C)no crops were destroyed by drought or flooding, there would be (d) no extreme storms or wildfires, and the (e)goverment would have taxed energy to the point that it is totally unaffordable.

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

So what is the opposite? (BTW, Chris, this step is called "Falsifying")

Well, let's see if Chris's theory is false by looking for opposites as he suggests, at least in the case of Climate Change:

(a) 97% of all Climate Scientists, and most others as well, including the majority of Deniers, agree that temps are rising steadily. Even Jim here on this board, among many others, admits that temps are rising. (Exactly the opposite of Chris's theory.)

(b) It is very obvious that the Arctic IS melting. so much so that countries like Canada, Russia and the US are gearing up for confrontations over the mineral rights, and shipping companies are planning to change routes to take avantage of the open water. Just look at this ice volume chart:
Posted Image
(Again, exactly the opposite of his theory.)

(c) Crops are being destroyed all over the world, driving food prices sky high.
I could come up with dozens of examples, but here's one so close to Chris he could see it just by looking out the door:
$5.3 Billion Texas Drought (Looking bad for Chris. The opposite of his theory yet again.)

(d) Extreme weather of all types has broken all records across the US this year. It's been mentioned so often it's not worth bringing up examples at this point.(Need I say it again?)

(e) Not one US government agency has raised a single energy tax this year, and Gasoline prices in particular are lower than they were in 2007.(Ooops - I bet he thought he was going to win on that one.)


So every single element of Chris's theory has been proven false, by his own schema.

If he were the true believer in the scientific method that he claims to be, he would now be an even stronger advocate of action against AGW than I am.

But if he's just blinded by his own dogma, then he'll continue to Deny everything, claiming my data, confirmed by many sources, is totally false, without supplying an authoritative source of any kind.

Which is it, Chris?
Edited by Brewster, Nov 2 2011, 04:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

maybe he should change his handle to ad hom, since it seems to be his favorite comeback when he can't support his position with any facts.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
campingken
Nov 2 2011, 01:30 AM
Wow are we lucky to have Chris back because he is the smartest guy in the whole wide world...

Ad Hom Et Al.... :bounce:
I don't claim to be smart. Just able to present facts and logic. Hell, that doesn't even make me right. But it does say one thing, I'm able to put together arguments, while many of you cannot, or in old age have forgot or grown too lazy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 2 2011, 05:25 AM
maybe he should change his handle to ad hom, since it seems to be his favorite comeback when he can't support his position with any facts.
That sounds like our resident foreigners from Canada.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 2 2011, 02:47 AM
Yup, good ol' Chris perfected his spiel years ago, and never varies from it.

He claims a wide knowledge, but as soon as anything doesn't agree with his world view, he shouts it down, never learning anything from the experience.

This one is a classic. He doesn't understand how Deniers consistently cherry pick the data, and when I point it out, then quite obviously I'm not attacking their methods but the person, so he can just ignore the explanation as irrelevant.

It's really a very convenient strategy. If he can't argue with the facts, he can always claim "Ad hom".

I was going to leave, but I may just lurk for a while. I need the entertainment. It will get old fast, but for the moment, it's good for a laugh.
More ad hom. That's one thing that hasn;t changed about you, Bruce.

"he shouts it down"

Where have I shouted anything down? You make up many claims but never back them up.

"He doesn't understand how Deniers consistently cherry pick the data, and when I point it out, then quite obviously I'm not attacking their methods but the person, so he can just ignore the explanation as irrelevant."

Because that's what you've done, attacked the messenger. The repeated "Denier" is just one example of your name calling.

The problem here is you call the data for the last 10 years cherry picked when it refutes your hypothesis.

"If he can't argue with the facts, he can always claim "Ad hom"."

And you make up more claims that you cannot shsow. I have pointed out ad hom where that's what people post--I understand why you defend ad hom--and I have argumed facts and logic where those were presented.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 2 2011, 02:54 AM
As I said, Jim, I need the laughs. I had left because your act got old, but Chris's is so old it's new again. (For a while.)
Endless ad hom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis