• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

I thought you guys were "winning"...?

ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I made a claim and you are more focused on the semantics.

Me: "97% of scientists conclude thusly."

Your reply: "of those who concluded anything at all, 97% affirm"

you have no interest in the debate, your only interest is semantics

So here is a question, of those who made no conclusion, which will you cite?

Will you cite one who concluded negatively?

Will you focus on semantics?
Click to expand...
You are still making the 97% claim even after reading what you yourself posted? You are asking me to cite one who concluded negatively when you posted the numbers yourself?

wow
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
You are still making the 97% claim even after reading what you yourself posted? You are asking me to cite one who concluded negatively when you posted the numbers yourself?

wow
Click to expand...
And I'm not going to change my position with out some science, I'm consistent like that.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I don't give a rat's ass about your semantic argument.

How's that?
Click to expand...
It's not semantics, how's that?

For you to continue making the claim you are making after posting what you did tells me you really don't understand what you posted. Those percentages are right there in your study, it has nothing to do with semantics.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
It's not semantics, how's that?

For you to continue making the claim you are making after posting what you did tells me you really don't understand what you posted. Those percentages are right there in your study, it has nothing to do with semantics.
Click to expand...
see post #116
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Click to expand...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Click to expand...
against alarmism

key word alarmism

now this is not semantics like dick head is focused on, this is a completely different conclusion. They admit in almost every single case that man is causing climate change, but since they are inconclusive otherwise, they simply do not support alarmism. I am well acquainted with this article, it is misleading because it claims to support the skeptic position and it is not peer reviewed.

There is not one single peer reviewed study which concludes that man is not the cause of climate change as far as I know, I welcome a link proving that wrong. There is no shortage of alarmist studies.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
see post #116
Click to expand...
I went back and read it again.

You are still using the 97% claim.

I used your study that you posted, not semantics.

97% of scientists /= 97% of the 33% who expressed an opinion does it?

It's not semantics, it's you straight up misrepresenting a study that you yourself posted. Then you accuse me of doing what you are doing.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
against alarmism

key word alarmism

now this is not semantics like dick head is focused on, this is a completely different conclusion. They admit in almost every single case that man is causing climate change, but since they are inconclusive otherwise, they simply do not support alarmism. I am well acquainted with this article, it is misleading because it claims to support the skeptic position and it is not peer reviewed.

There is not one single peer reviewed study which concludes that man is not the cause of climate change as far as I know, I welcome a link proving that wrong. There is no shortage of alarmist studies.
Click to expand...
It took you all of three minutes to review my citation:roll:
If you would spend a little time researching the other side of the debate you might learn something, but facts do not fit your agenda, that is clearly displayed that.

FYI, the key word is not "alarmism" that's just something you picked out in 2 minutes to support your narrative.

You believe whatever you want, your absolute trust in government tells me a lot about you.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Thanks for your opinion. However, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that you are dishonest.
Click to expand...
Actually it's thoroughly claimed by you while lying several times. Not sure why you want to keep rehashing that. I'd be embarrassed if I were you (for so many reasons).
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
There is not one single peer reviewed study which concludes that man is not the cause of climate change as far as I know, I welcome a link proving that wrong.
Click to expand...
This is why you're "wrong":

You're demanding disproof of an insufficiently conclusive assertion; i.e. your assertion has not yet been proved, but you are already demanding disproof, as if you have already claimed victory and validity for your inconclusive assertion.

And "semantics" is actually about whether words mean what they should mean; what you really mean is "pedantics," aka "splitting hairs," aka disagreeing over very slight and unimportant perceptual linguistic differences.

When people use the same words to mean different things, that causes an impedance to communication, which is far from irrelevant.

Definitions must be agreed upon, prior to the useful progression of natural discourse.


Side note: it's human nature to alter our surroundings in order to remove threats and better facilitate the acquisition and accomplishment of our desires... which, i believe, will, both ironically and unfortunately, eventually significantly reduce the vigor of our species, due to the lack of resistances which must be overcome, which is why we have advanced and developed as we have. If we don't lift weights, we lose strength (or never develop it in the first place). If we don't run, we lose speed and stamina; if we don't practice agility, we lose mobility; if we don't practice critical thinking... etc.

It's funny, most people probably want life to be easy and pleasurable... but if we strive to construct such an environment (and ultimately accomplish that), we will inevitably decrease our ability to sufficiently alter our environments to suit our wants and needs. Removing all the threats and making everything too convenient, will potentially make "everything" threatening and inconvenient. ^^

We should instead strive to preserve the right amounts and types of resistances, applied to the most beneficial places, in the most beneficial ways, while removing the right threats, and constructing the right conveniences. I'd love to see someone (will likely require more than just one) figure out all the right ways to accomplish such a thing.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Actually it's thoroughly claimed by you while lying several times. Not sure why you want to keep rehashing that. I'd be embarrassed if I were you (for so many reasons).
Click to expand...
So you want to go back to that other thread where you made a claim, but then swore you didn't, but then vehemently defended the claim even though you swore you never claimed it?

Or how about in this thread where you went on for several pages about how the chart that I posted implied that the Koch brothers outspent the entire funding for all of the research that has ever been done worldwide on the subject?

Or we could keep arguing the semantics about which 97% of scientists concluded what.

I can't think of a single post where you actually put forward an argument.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
It took you all of three minutes to review my citation:roll:
If you would spend a little time researching the other side of the debate you might learn something, but facts do not fit your agenda, that is clearly displayed that.

FYI, the key word is not "alarmism" that's just something you picked out in 2 minutes to support your narrative.

You believe whatever you want, your absolute trust in government tells me a lot about you.
Click to expand...
And you must have missed the part where I said that I am well acquainted with the link you provided.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
This is why you're "wrong":

You're demanding disproof of an insufficiently conclusive assertion; i.e. your assertion has not yet been proved, but you are already demanding disproof, as if you have already claimed victory and validity for your inconclusive assertion.

And "semantics" is actually about whether words mean what they should mean; what you really mean is "pedantics," aka "splitting hairs," aka disagreeing over very slight and unimportant perceptual linguistic differences.

When people use the same words to mean different things, that causes an impedance to communication, which is far from irrelevant.

Definitions must be agreed upon, prior to the useful progression of natural discourse.


Side note: it's human nature to alter our surroundings in order to remove threats and better facilitate the acquisition and accomplishment of our desires... which, i believe, will, both ironically and unfortunately, eventually significantly reduce the vigor of our species, due to the lack of resistances which must be overcome, which is why we have advanced and developed as we have. If we don't lift weights, we lose strength (or never develop it in the first place). If we don't run, we lose speed and stamina; if we don't practice agility, we lose mobility; if we don't practice critical thinking... etc.

It's funny, most people probably want life to be easy and pleasurable... but if we strive to construct such an environment (and ultimately accomplish that), we will inevitably decrease our ability to sufficiently alter our environments to suit our wants and needs. Removing all the threats and making everything too convenient, will potentially make "everything" threatening and inconvenient. ^^

We should instead strive to preserve the right amounts and types of resistances, applied to the most beneficial places, in the most beneficial ways, while removing the right threats, and constructing the right conveniences. I'd love to see someone (will likely require more than just one) figure out all the right ways to accomplish such a thing.
Click to expand...
I can see that of the three stooges who I am simultaneously debating, you're the least stupid, so give me a minute. I hate the tone of your posts as they belie your misplaced arrogance but I will admit you are almost scientifically literate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top