| 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: |
| Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,900 Views) | |
| Chris | Nov 12 2011, 12:19 PM Post #81 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Again, arguing the man. Very scientific, Brewster, very scientific. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 12 2011, 08:45 PM Post #82 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chris, I did not bring up Halton Arp. I simply pointed out that he had some expertise in his field, unlike your present heroine. I originally pointed out that you had hung your hat on someone with no expertise in the field who had published an easily debunked piece of rubbish. I then presented the science, showed how wrong she was, and quite apparently you chose to ignore it all. I asked you to support your arguments with real, knowledgeable experts in the field, and you continue to ignore that as well. Reading over your posts, it's quite apparent that your central argument is that science is unknowable, there is too much uncertainty, and, therefore, in this particular case, we should do nothing about Climate Change. Worse, you repeat long-debunked Denier lies, such as this:
When all studies have shown that well over 95% of all Climatologists believe the present model, and that any reasonable reading of the data shows steady decadal warming, your argument is, prima facie, untenable. BTW, a 15 year period as a minimum to establish a a significant trend has been the standard in the field for years. It has nothing to do with uncertainty, but to allow for weather "noise", and various cycles the Earth passes through. More science you're trying to turn on its head. And there is nothing complex about the influence of CO2, it has been understood since Tyndall's work in 1859. The basic calculations as to the relationship between CO2 and Global Warming were published by Arrhenius in 1896. By the way, his calculations still stand as 100% accurate to this day. Quite sad really. I remember discussions with Creationists many years ago, where you took the scientific view. When did you lose it? But let's get back to your central theme, that some new discovery is likely to overturn Climatology:
The Nature of Science The bottom line is, while new discoveries may change details in Climate Science, the basics are settled. We are, as a species, in the process of committing suicide, and we have very few years left to turn events around. This is not alarmism, it is a scientific truth. Repeating all the Denialist lies in the world (and you haven't found any new ones, they have all been repeated endlessly, just like the Creationist nonsense) will not change our direction. And we're doing it all in the name of profits for a select few, like the Koch brothers. Time to 'fess up, Chris. Your arguments are based on political beliefs, not science. And no amount of latin phraseology can hide that fact. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Nov 12 2011, 09:01 PM Post #83 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Aw, jeez. Brewster is back fo another beating. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 12 2011, 09:31 PM Post #84 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, Jim, I've beat up on Chris enough. Every argument he's brought up has been refuted, if not by me, then others. He hasn't a single point left. I've asked him to support his arguments with real scientists and real facts, but it's quite apparent he hasn't any. It's really not his fault. The science supporting his position just doesn't exist. I'll add just one cartoon that pretty much sums things up. ![]() I'm done here. No reason to beat a dead horse. By the way, before I go, if there's anyone out there who, unlike Chris, wants to learn the real story, all facets of the subject are covered in detail here. Edited by Brewster, Nov 12 2011, 09:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Nov 12 2011, 10:31 PM Post #85 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Uh huh. Snicker, snicker. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 12 2011, 11:00 PM Post #86 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you for that well thought out and detailed comment, Jim. By the way, my challenge to you is still open, has been or over a year now. Any closer to finding any solid proof that any real Climate Scientist participated in any fraud of any kind? Proof, not innuendo. I thought not. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Nov 12 2011, 11:09 PM Post #87 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are asking the wrong person if you want facts Brew. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 12 2011, 11:14 PM Post #88 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not expecting any facts, Thump. There aren't any anyway. I'm just hoping that if I embarrass him often enough, he'll stop making silly comments. So far it's not working. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Nov 12 2011, 11:46 PM Post #89 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Embarrased no. May riot tho. Brahahahaha. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 12 2011, 11:51 PM Post #90 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Chris, I did not bring up Halton Arp. I simply pointed out that he had some expertise in his field, unlike your present heroine." I didn't say you did. But there you go again arguing the man--ad hom--again. " then presented the science, showed how wrong she was" No you didn't, you merely claimed it while omitting to mention that her data is the same data you use. Her data is BEST data. Muller's data is BEST data. They are colleagues. Yet you deify him and demonize her. "Reading over your posts, it's quite apparent that your central argument is that science is unknowable, there is too much uncertainty, and, therefore, in this particular case, we should do nothing about Climate Change." Your arguments have a bad habit of making claims without ever substantiating them. Why, because you can't, you just make up the accusations. If you read my discussion with NGC you will see he and I have said nothing about science not discovering knowledge because of uncertainty, in fact the opposite, that knowledge discovery is hampered by the sort of politicizing and personalizing science found in each and everyone of your posts littered with logical fallacies, mainly deifying yourself and those who agree while demonizing everyone else. I've read a lot of science, from general articles to actual scientific papers, and none of them engage in the ad hom filling your posts. "Worse, you repeat long-debunked Denier lies" Again, an unsubstantiated claim argued by claiming certainty through authority and concensus, the very thing Deutsh argues is not science: "The misconception that knowledge needs authority to be genuine or reliable dates back to antiquity, and it still prevails…It converts the quest for truth into a quest for certainty(a feeling) or for endorsement (a social status). This misconception is called justificationism." And I call emotionalism. "a 15 year period as a minimum to establish a a significant trend has been the standard in the field for years" Emotionalism often results in self-contradiction. If 15 years data is significant, then 15 years of no rise in global temps is significant. But that the very data you're trying to avoid if not bury. "And there is nothing complex about the influence of CO2, it has been understood since Tyndall's work in 1859. The basic calculations as to the relationship between CO2 and Global Warming were published by Arrhenius in 1896. By the way, his calculations still stand as 100% accurate to this day." Again, the baloney of absolute certainty. That is not science. NGC disagrees that we know enough. The fact that we've gone over a decade with rising CO2 levels but no corresponding rise in temperatures says climate is not as simple as you make it: man causes CO2 causes warming. That's the elephant in the room your hypothesis fails to account for. "But let's get back to your central theme, that some new discovery is likely to overturn Climatology" I haven't argued that. Why do you need to make up straw men to argue with? "And we're doing it all in the name of profits for a select few, like the Koch brothers." I haven't argued that. Why do you need to make up straw men to argue with? Pure intellectual dishonesty is all I read in your posts all to avoid the elephant in the room. Try again, Brewster, how does your hypothesis that man causes CO2 causes warming account for over a decade on rising CO2 but no corresponding rising in temperatures. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






10:41 PM Jul 11
