FBM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:38 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
And your statement is a logical fallacy, ad hominem. Why would a fallacious argument carry more weight than a valid one?


Funny as it would seems his whole book is nothing more and nothing less then an ad hominem attack on people he label as deniers for daring to question the unproven claims of the supporters of human driven climate change.

But it was a good try if kind of silly on it face.


Care to back that up with some evidence? Quotes from the book, seeing as how you've acquired and read it so quickly? http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/teaemoticonbygmintyfresxa4.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:44 pm
@BillRM,
Go to <climate.nasa.gov> for proof of human influence on climate change.

If you're smarter than the scientists at NASA, please provide evidence.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:50 pm
@FBM,
If the supporters of human driven climate change and the mathematics models that they depend on had faith in their positions they would not feel the need to try to shut up the questioners by labeling them as deniers.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:53 pm
@BillRM,
Plz provide evidence of your credentials on climate change.
Wilso
 
  2  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Am I the only one who's noted that most climate change deniers completely believe that a man once walked on water?


Well this so call climate denial is a damn atheist but what the hell after all you are a true believer is similar nonsense yourself.


I didn't understand any of that.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:56 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

If the supporters of human driven climate change and the mathematics models that they depend on had faith in their positions they would not feel the need to try to shut up the questioners by labeling them as deniers.


a) I take that as a "no" regarding the invitation to back up your previous claim with evidence.
b) Good thing that those who recognize AGW aren't relying on faith, but instead, evidence...
Wilso
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:00 pm
99% of scientists in the appropriate fields have analysed the evidence and concluded the reality of anthropogenic climate change. 1 % (many with questionable "qualifications) deny the evidence.

If you went to 100 doctors, 99 of them said you had cancer, 1 said you didn't, I wonder which diagnosis most people would accept?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:03 pm
@Wilso,
Good analogy. Some people will still not get it. LOL
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,

Quote:
If you're smarter than the scientists at NASA, please provide evidence


Let see NSA had the mirror for the Hubble telescope grind wrong under their watch, lost a many billions dollars Mars probe due to miscommunication as to whether the english system or the metric system was going to be use, killed three astronauts in a fire in an Apollo command capsule by trying to use pure O2 in it life support system. force the engineers at the boaster manuifactor to sign off on a shuttle launch outside the temperate window and killed seven astronauts, killed another seven astronauts by not dealing with a known problem of insulation breaking off of the shuttle tanks and after two groups of engineers saw an event at launch they had concerns about requested that the shuttle be look at in orbit was denial those requests.

To sum up NASA is far from perfect and the management even have a known history of forcing their lower level people to follow the party line and that had in a number of times resulted in deaths that no one needed to paid a personal price for.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Plz provide evidence of your credentials on climate change.


First I seems to know one hell of a lot more about computer models and modeling then anyone else on this thread and their limitations, just to start with.

BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:28 pm
@FBM,
Sorry but the people that wish to sell a theory as in a climate change theory are the ones that need to offer proof and by proof I do not mean unproven computer models.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:33 pm
@BillRM,
The subject is climate change, not computer models. If you have evidence from computer models supported by the majority of scientists on climate change, please provide them.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The subject is climate change, not computer models. If you have evidence from computer models supported by the majority of scientists on climate change, please provide them.


Now now you and I both know that all the predicts of future temperates and sea level rises and so on come out of computer models.

If the computer models are worthless so are the predictions of the degree of climate changes they produce and the source of those changes for that matter.
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:47 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry but the people that wish to sell a theory as in a climate change theory are the ones that need to offer proof and by proof I do not mean unproven computer models.


Another dodge? You've been showered with evidence-based reasoning, but knee-jerk denialism has robbed you of the ability to understand that fact. You don't win points or special snowflake status for mere denials. That's a child's game, and it's more suited for creationists than for normal people.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 07:56 pm
@BillRM,
According to ucsusa.org, computer models of climate change have been pretty accurate. I prefer to rely on their confidence level than yours.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
According to ucsusa.org, computer models of climate change have been pretty accurate. I prefer to rely on their confidence level than yours.aAa



Of course you do as otherwise you would need to rethink your positions but that does no change the fact that such models can not work even in theory see the branch of mathematics name chaos theory for the reason why yourself.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:48 pm
@BillRM,
I prefer the scientists at ucsusa over you! That's a fact.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:48 pm
@BillRM,
Pleas explain chaos theory.
- this should be interesting.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:49 pm
@Wilso,
As it relates to climate change.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:55 pm
@Wilso,
According to aip.org, the largest changes could be predicted with some accuracy.
 

Related Topics

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion? - Discussion by wandeljw
New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
New species of hominid discovered - Question by FBM
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up - Discussion by gungasnake
Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative? - Discussion by wandeljw
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE
  3. » Page 39
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:44:31
▲ ▼