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

[ginwilly]

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.

Yes, let's do exactly that.

The chart uses the scientists from all funding, yet uses only the money from a very small segment. True or false?

Would you really like to revisit the other thread where I consistently maintained it's a mixed market while you kept shifting while claiming it was me who was shifting? not one iota, must be disabled from service to receive care, medicare/caid are not socialist...

You continue to say 97% in spite of what your own link states and then say, well that's just semantics then tell me we are arguing semantics.

I'm guessing you are drawing a crazy check every month?

 

[reasonevangelist]

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.

lol. (not meant as an offensive "lol" at all...)

Honestly, i don't intend to project an arrogant tone; i merely intend to communicate with sufficient precision, and am prone to bouts of excess verbosity.

 

[abandonconflict]

Yes, let's do exactly that.

The chart uses the scientists from all funding, yet uses only the money from a very small segment. True or false?

Would you really like to revisit the other thread where I consistently maintained it's a mixed market while you kept shifting while claiming it was me who was shifting? not one iota, must be disabled from service to receive care, medicare/caid are not socialist...

You continue to say 97% in spite of what your own link states and then say, well that's just semantics then tell me we are arguing semantics.

I'm guessing you are drawing a crazy check every month?

That's nice ginwilly, let me know when you actually have something to assert and please make it complete in the form of premises and a conclusion regarding the thread topic. I don't need you to agree in order to know that I have rebutted everything you have put forward and that every single bit of it consisted of feeble attempts at distortion.

 

[ginwilly]

That's nice ginwilly, let me know when you actually have something to assert and please make it complete in the form of premises and a conclusion regarding the thread topic. I don't need you to agree in order to know that I have rebutted everything you have put forward and that every single bit of it consisted of feeble attempts at distortion.

All right then, have a good night man, you've exhausted me.

If nothing else, maybe you'll stop using that 97% even though you won't publicly admit you didn't understand it.

 

[jahbrudda]

I guess it's true, you just can't fix stupid.
AC have you noticed there is nobody else here defending your silly BS.
The 97% peer reviewed crap was debunked over a year ago, carry on.

 

[Padawanbater2]

lol. (not meant as an offensive "lol" at all...)

Honestly, i don't intend to project an arrogant tone; i merely intend to communicate with sufficient precision, and am prone to bouts of excess verbosity.

I feel you on that

 

[Padawanbater2]

The 97% peer reviewed crap was debunked over a year ago, carry on.

What don't you understand about the fact that 97% of peer reviewed published scientists accept ACC as factual?

Do you dispute that fact?

 

[abandonconflict]

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.

Only a small part of this really addresses the subject, the beginning. Simply put, man made global warming is theory. It is as factual as science can be and the only existing dissent is funded by the oil industry. The evidence is mounting well beyond the point of theory and there even exist several peer reviewed studies concluding that the majority of trained experts agree. The theory has been tested as rigorously as other theories and still is considered the dominant view by scientists who have done their best to disprove it.

I agree with most of the rest of this post and even somewhat about your view on what is a semantic argument. In particular, I agree emphatically on your view that people who don't agree on the definition of a term ought not to continue debating it as a subject.

But no, the skeptics need to provide some fucking proof.

 

[althor]

lol. (not meant as an offensive "lol" at all...)

Honestly, i don't intend to project an arrogant tone; i merely intend to communicate with sufficient precision, and am prone to bouts of excess verbosity.

Your posts speak for themselves. A little modesty can go a long way.

 

[abandonconflict]

All right then, have a good night man, you've exhausted me.

If nothing else, maybe you'll stop using that 97% even though you won't publicly admit you didn't understand it.

No, that was but one of two studies that were peer reviewed and conclude that there is a consensus among scientists regarding the subject.

It is a bona fide theory.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Only a small part of this really addresses the subject, the beginning. Simply put, man made global warming is theory. It is as factual as science can be and the only existing dissent is funded by the oil industry. The evidence is mounting well beyond the point of theory and there even exist several peer reviewed studies concluding that the majority of trained experts agree. The theory has been tested as rigorously as other theories and still is considered the dominant view by scientists who have done their best to disprove it.

I agree with most of the rest of this post and even somewhat about your view on what is a semantic argument. In particular, I agree emphatically on your view that people who don't agree on the definition of a term ought not to continue debating it as a subject.

But no, the skeptics need to provide some fucking proof.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that a theory is the highest level for a scientific idea to reach. Most people think it's a law, but laws describe things, theories explain them.

Gives me a big laugh when I see MuyLoco post it in bold caps as if it's some kind of attack against it! LMFAO!

 

[abandonconflict]

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that a theory is the highest level for a scientific idea to reach. Most people think it's a law, but laws describe things, theories explain them.

Gives me a big laugh when I see MuyLoco post it in bold caps as if it's some kind of attack against it! LMFAO!

Yeah, he has a facile approach.

 

[ginwilly]

No, that was but one of two studies that were peer reviewed and conclude that there is a consensus among scientists regarding the subject.

It is a bona fide theory.

Yes, much better thanks.

 

[abandonconflict]

lol. (not meant as an offensive "lol" at all...)

Honestly, i don't intend to project an arrogant tone; i merely intend to communicate with sufficient precision, and am prone to bouts of excess verbosity.

believe it or not, I like you.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

What don't you understand about the fact that 97% of peer reviewed published scientists accept ACC as factual?

Do you dispute that fact?

What dont you understand about the fact that 66.4% of peer reviewed, published scientists won't go on record accepting MMGW as factual, despite such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that only idiots can't fathom.

That's wierd, huh? You'd think that closer to 100% could make such a simple leap in the face of such an overwhelming avalanche of evidence. They must have all been bribed by the Koch brothers to remain on the fence. Yeah, that's the ticket.

So dumb.

 

[jahbrudda]

What don't you understand about the fact that 97% of peer reviewed published scientists accept ACC as factual?

Do you dispute that fact?

Yes I do depute Cooks claim, like millions of others when his 97% consensus crap was torn to shreds.

 

[abandonconflict]

What dont you understand about the fact that 66.4% of peer reviewed, published scientists won't go on record accepting MMGW as factual, despite such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that only idiots can't fathom.

That's wierd, huh? You'd think that closer to 100% could make such a simple leap in the face of such an overwhelming avalanche of evidence. They must have all been bribed by the Koch brothers to remain on the fence. Yeah, that's the ticket.

So dumb.

WOW

so 33.6% of scientists are willing to go on record accepting it as fact

That is all the proof I need that it is a fact.

If only you knew how rare it is that a scientist will say something is scientific fact. Usually they are too reserved about such a new theory.

 

[ginwilly]

What dont you understand about the fact that 66.4% of peer reviewed, published scientists won't go on record accepting MMGW as factual, despite such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that only idiots can't fathom.

That's wierd, huh? You'd think that closer to 100% could make such a simple leap in the face of such an overwhelming avalanche of evidence. They must have all been bribed by the Koch brothers to remain on the fence. Yeah, that's the ticket.

So dumb.

I believe they do say most likely though. They won't make a commitment to fact but most admit the evidence is strong.

What you didn't claim though is that 66.4% disagree, that would be a tactic used by our fellow posters at times. Thanks for that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What dont you understand about the fact that 66.4% of peer reviewed, published scientists won't go on record accepting MMGW as factual, despite such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that only idiots can't fathom.

That's wierd, huh? You'd think that closer to 100% could make such a simple leap in the face of such an overwhelming avalanche of evidence. They must have all been bribed by the Koch brothers to remain on the fence. Yeah, that's the ticket.

So dumb.

Retard, peer reviewed, published scientists.

Ya ever wonder why "GLOBAL WARMING WAS CREATED BY OBAMA MUSLIM KENYA!!!" doesn't get published?

 

[reasonevangelist]

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that a theory is the highest level for a scientific idea to reach. Most people think it's a law, but laws describe things, theories explain them.

^this... it's infuriating when people say "only a theory" so dismissively, as if "theory" is just some fancy word used by intellectuals to arbitrarily impose false validity of their preferences, and make others feel dumb or small... or something. It's like they perceive an attack on their ignorance, and then counter that attack with more ignorance... as if that will somehow make them right!

But then they get all offended when you insinuate that they may be mistaken (or flat out declare them wrong) about the definition of the term "scientific theory." I'm often tempted to counter with something like "...you mean hypothesis?" when people say "just theories" and talk about things "theoretically." I'm a little OCD about it, actually (all words, not just this one). But people seem to interpret my reaction to their incorrect definition as me being upset that they don't use MY definition... as if i'm only upset because they're not doing things "my way," instead of being upset that they insist on adhering to an incorrect definition, and expecting me to conform to their own linguistic standards, which i have valid basis for rejecting.

And then when people act like it's wrong to try to be correct all the time... lol. Everyone should try to be as correct as possible! Right? I think so. Being wrong tends to suck, for various reasons... so i try to avoid it, and if i don't know something, i try to at least figure out what it isn't, and i try not to fabricate assertions from a position of ignorance. But, you know, humans and perception and mistakes, etc. If i know that i don't know something, i dislike pretending that i do. I dislike lying and misrepresenting myself (except in very specific situations where self-preservation is a factor... actually, even then, but we do what we must).