Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow! mamooth's dialogue has too many fallacies to cover them all.
You neglected to show where any of it was a fallacy. You just repeated your various unsupported conspiracy theories.
I showed the problem with Popper. Feynman, the problem is not with Feynman, but with the way deniers cherrypick him to misrepresent his views, and the way that they lack the self-awareness to understand Feynman was criticizing them. For instance, this bit of Feynman is aimed directly at denier types.
“Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools-guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus -- THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”
That is, Feynman was a real skeptic, and he'd have had zero patience with poseur-skeptics like deniers.
The favorite denier quote from Feynman is
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
Which is stupid of them, being climate science does agree with the experiments, while those experiments contradict denier claims.
It's also an oversimplification. If an observation contradicts a theory, it doesn't mean the theory has to be completely wrong. It often means the theory only needs a bit of modification.
For example, the theory of gravity says things fall down.
I see a bird flying.
That doesn't nullify the entire theory of gravity, but denier logic says that it does.
Let's change the example. Peptic ulcers are caused by stress. The evidence was overwhelming that stress exacerbated peptic ulcers. But that dealt only with symptoms not the primary cause. Bacteria was found to be the primary cause. Was the evidence for stress wrong? Or just misguided?
I think everyone already clearly sees how global warming deniers are the equivalent to the "Ulcers are caused by stress!" diehards. New convincing evidence poured in saying they were wrong, but they refused to budge from their debunked beliefs. Some of them, doctors with practices based on treating ulcers the old way, had a financial incentive to deny the evidence. And some people just liked being contrarians, because they thought it made them look smart.
Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.
So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.
The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.
The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.
Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.
So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.
The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.
The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.
"The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation.....according to the loony AGWCult who has presented absolutely zero scientific evidence
Why am I unsurprised that you didn't get the point. Consensus science determined that stress caused peptic ulcers. A team of skeptic scientists came along and demonstrated Heliobacter was the primary cause and that stress was secondary.
While global warming skeptics have not disproved CO2 as the primary cause of warming, they have certainly shown that it has been exaggerated and likely to only be a secondary factor.
Why am I unsurprised that you didn't get the point. Consensus science determined that stress caused peptic ulcers. A team of skeptic scientists came along and demonstrated Heliobacter was the primary cause and that stress was secondary.
And you're missing the point that we're the skeptics, while you deniers are only skeptic-poseurs who cling to a disproven consensus instead of looking at the data.
While global warming skeptics have not disproved CO2 as the primary cause of warming, they have certainly shown that it has been exaggerated and likely to only be a secondary factor.
And you keep illustrating that point every time you state a conspiracy theory as if it were a fact.
Ian, you're just a common conspiracy nutter with delusions of adequacy. And your reaction to those who point that out is the same as any other conspiracy nutter.
Anybody who tries to force God on you is worthy of being Ignored.It is all a lie and we must praise Jesus Christ and read the bible for all of our truths. Only listen to god o'mighty!!! Do I get a mother fucking Amen?
the only conspiracy is that CO2 is dangerous. Promoted by warmers with no evidence. PERIOD!Why am I unsurprised that you didn't get the point. Consensus science determined that stress caused peptic ulcers. A team of skeptic scientists came along and demonstrated Heliobacter was the primary cause and that stress was secondary.
And you're missing the point that we're the skeptics, while you deniers are only skeptic-poseurs who cling to a disproven consensus instead of looking at the data.
While global warming skeptics have not disproved CO2 as the primary cause of warming, they have certainly shown that it has been exaggerated and likely to only be a secondary factor.
And you keep illustrating that point every time you state a conspiracy theory as if it were a fact.
Ian, you're just a common conspiracy nutter with delusions of adequacy. And your reaction to those who point that out is the same as any other conspiracy nutter.
Why am I unsurprised that you didn't get the point. Consensus science determined that stress caused peptic ulcers. A team of skeptic scientists came along and demonstrated Heliobacter was the primary cause and that stress was secondary.
And you're missing the point that we're the skeptics, while you deniers are only skeptic-poseurs who cling to a disproven consensus instead of looking at the data.
While global warming skeptics have not disproved CO2 as the primary cause of warming, they have certainly shown that it has been exaggerated and likely to only be a secondary factor.
And you keep illustrating that point every time you state a conspiracy theory as if it were a fact.
Ian, you're just a common conspiracy nutter with delusions of adequacy. And your reaction to those who point that out is the same as any other conspiracy nutter.
The earth is getting warmer (or colder)
So what? That's what the earth has done
Domant cause humans
So in your world you want to exterminate us all? You go first.
The effects of that warming (or cooling) will be consequential
Again so what, it would happen anyways
human response is required.
Why? So it makes you feel good, when we all die anyway when yellow stone explode or a mile wide asteroid slams into us?
The earth is getting warmer (or colder)
So what? That's what the earth has done
Domant cause humans
So in your world you want to exterminate us all? You go first.
The effects of that warming (or cooling) will be consequential
Again so what, it would happen anyways
human response is required.
Why? So it makes you feel good, when we all die anyway when yellow stone explode or a mile wide asteroid slams into us?
The problem is economics. When you have weather problems that are extreme it costs big bucks to make everything normal again. Drought in the desert southwest, extreme cold/rain in the northeast. If we did worked to make the air clean/cleaner again it could go along way to normalize weather patterns or at least make breathing easier.
I'm doing my part with two electric vehicles, one charging only from the sun. What are you doing?
Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.
So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.
The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.
The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.
Prove it, without quoting Rush LimbaughAh, philosophy of science questions.
First rule of thumb. If someone quotes Popper or Feymann non-ironically to back their position, you're almost certainly looking at a pseudoscience crank, as that's a favored tactic of those who have no evidence for their own position.
Popper had some problems. He said that falsifiability defines science. To show the problems with that, consider ...
"Vaccines do not cause autism."
Now show what could falsify that.
It's pretty much impossible to absolutely falsify that statement with any realistic data. Yet it's still clearly science.
Real science is more defined by coherence, consilience, and consensus.
Coherence. Internally consistent. Real climate science is coherent. Denialism cobbles a dozen conflicting conspiracy theories together.
Consilience. Multiple independent evidence streams converging on the same result. Real climate science has that, which is why it's so peculiar that deniers think obsessively nitpicking a single minor point means anything.
Consensus. Scientists share a common set of theories, observations and models, and can talk to each other, find flaws in any points, and work forward from it. Real climate science has that. Denialism has no consensus of its own, just a religious belief that requires hating the opposition.
Actually plants require less water when ambient air concentrations of CO2 are higher, thus fighting desertification.The earth is getting warmer (or colder)
So what? That's what the earth has done
Domant cause humans
So in your world you want to exterminate us all? You go first.
The effects of that warming (or cooling) will be consequential
Again so what, it would happen anyways
human response is required.
Why? So it makes you feel good, when we all die anyway when yellow stone explode or a mile wide asteroid slams into us?
The problem is economics. When you have weather problems that are extreme it costs big bucks to make everything normal again. Drought in the desert southwest, extreme cold/rain in the northeast. If we did worked to make the air clean/cleaner again it could go along way to normalize weather patterns or at least make breathing easier.
I'm doing my part with two electric vehicles, one charging only from the sun. What are you doing?
The earth is getting warmer (or colder)
So what? That's what the earth has done
Domant cause humans
So in your world you want to exterminate us all? You go first.
The effects of that warming (or cooling) will be consequential
Again so what, it would happen anyways
human response is required.
Why? So it makes you feel good, when we all die anyway when yellow stone explode or a mile wide asteroid slams into us?
The problem is economics. When you have weather problems that are extreme it costs big bucks to make everything normal again. Drought in the desert southwest, extreme cold/rain in the northeast. If we did worked to make the air clean/cleaner again it could go along way to normalize weather patterns or at least make breathing easier.
I'm doing my part with two electric vehicles, one charging only from the sun. What are you doing?
Anything that would establish a clear link and mechanism for a vaccine causing autism. If a vaccine did cause autism (they don't) then it would be possible to show that it did, and that would falsify the claim that the vaccines do not cause autism.Popper had some problems. He said that falsifiability defines science. To show the problems with that, consider ...
"Vaccines do not cause autism."
Now show what could falsify that..
