Bing answers CO2 question

[Dagosa]

Dragosa, unless you spent some time studying, you will never understand that your reliance on the alleged assertions of the scientific community amounts to nothing more than the fallacy of appeal to authority.

This is one of the reasons you flee from the question I asked you (a couple of times) about the role of “consensus” is the scientific method.

I’ll give you the answer and you still won’t be able to grasp that either.

Properly understood, the role of “consensus” in the scientific method is exactly and precisely — none.

So, you don’t know what “consensus” means do you.

 

[Dagosa]

The last time science was done by Consensus, the Earth was a flat plane at the center of the Universe, supported by the backs of turtles.

Babble.

 

[BackAgain]

So, you don’t know what “consensus” means do you.

Unlike you, I do.

But you’re still stuck on the fallacy of appeal to authority.

 

[Dagosa]

You’re amazingly gullible. But that’s ok. No one would ever mistake you for a person capable of thinking.

You’re amazingly stupid.

 

[Dagosa]

Unlike you, I do.

But you’re still stuck on the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Another made up phrase to rally around.

 

[BackAgain]

You’re amazingly stupid.

Nah. But I am obviously orders of magnitude smarter than you can ever be.

 

[BackAgain]

Another made up phrase to rally around.

Lol.

“Made up phrase.”

 

[Dagosa]

Nah. But I am obviously orders of magnitude smarter than you can ever be.

You are ? First sign of ignorance or mental illness is thinking everyone else is wrong except you.

 

[Dagosa]

Lol.

“Made up phrase.”

So, you’re a Humper.

 

[BackAgain]

You are ? First sign of ignorance or mental illness is thinking everyone else is wrong except you.

I don’t. I simply recognize how stupid and wrong you are.

Lol. You’re a hapless hump.

 

[BackAgain]

So, you’re a Humper.

Dragosa is also the mistress of the non sequitur.



Now, at the risk of getting you back on topic, thrill is with your acumen. Share with us the very basics of the scientific method. Go.

 

[Dagosa]

Dragosa is also the mistress of the non sequitur.



Now, at the risk of getting you back on topic, thrill is with your acumen. Share with us the very basics of the scientific method. Go.

Did you italicize the words just to show off, or is it a cult initiation thing.

Btw, only you claimed to be the scientific method expert while doubling down and saying all the climate science institutes don’t use it…only you know the big secret.

 

[BackAgain]

Did you italicize the words just to show off, or is it a cult initiation thing.

Foreign words and phrases are placed in italics for a reason. So, no. Not to show off nor for your other “reason.” Your ignorance is showing, again.

Btw, only you claimed to be the scientific method expert while doubling down and saying all the climate science institutes don’t use it…only you know the big secret.

False. Why do you lie so much? Does the truth cause you physical pain? The truth is that I have never claimed to be an expert in the scientific method.

Also, I never said that the scientific institutes don’t use it.

Instead, I was merely pointing out that consensus plays zero role in it. So your reliance on the fallacy (which you are clearly relying on) is all about you and your general ignorance.

 

[abu afak]

Unlike you, I do.

But you’re still stuck on the fallacy of appeal to authority.

LOL
You don't know Scientific method NOR DO YOU KNOW "Appeal To Authority" Fallacy!

"appeal to authority"​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

""It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to Dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus.
Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.""

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

IOW, If I cited Einstein on Relativity that's NO "Fallacy" it's a high quality Expert citation.
If I Cited Trump or Kobe Bryant (or even a Biologist) on it, THAT would be a fallacy.

Your problem is LOW IQ and LOW Edu, but mostly you're a Know-Nothing RW Asshole who is here to Talk Shlt/Bash liberals with ZERO knowledge of the Topic.. or any Science topic.

Last-word away asshole (always), but You Learned something from my post.
No one learns ANYTHING from your hostile BS.
`

 

[BackAgain]

LOL
You don't know Scientific method NOR DO YOU KNOW "Appeal To Authority" Fallacy!

"appeal to authority"​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

""It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to Dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus.
Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.""

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

IOW, If I cited Einstein on Relativity that's NO "Fallacy" it's a high quality Expert citation.
If I Cited Trump or Kobe Bryant on it, THAT would be a fallacy.

Your problem is LOW IQ and LOW Edu, and you're a Know-Nothing RW Asshole who is here to Talk Shlt/Bash liberals with ZERO knowledge of the Topic.. or any Science topic.

Last-word away asshole (always), but You Learned something from my post.
No one learns ANYTHING from your hostile BS.
`

Wrong again, apu dumfuk. When an ignorant twat cites to nonsensical crap like the alleged “consensus,” he is demonstrating his inability to discuss the actual science. Therefore his appeal to authority is transparently a fallacy.

I know logic sails way the fuck over your tiny little head. We’ve already seen that you discuss science without understanding it. So why would logic be any different for you?



;

 

[BackAgain]

Last-word away asshole (always), but You Learned something from my post.
No one learns ANYTHING from your hostile BS.
`

That’s because, unlike you, oh frail-ego shallow-thinking and often-shrieking pathetic asshole, I’m not the one spewing BS.

Nobody learns anything from your posts because you are obviously far too lacking in knowledge to ever properly teach anything on the subject.

Now, toddle off dumfuk. Go play in traffic.

 

[abu afak]

CWrong again, apu dumfuk. When an ignorant twat cites to nonsensical crap like the alleged “Consensus,” he is demonstrating his inability to discuss the actual science. Therefore his appeal to authority is transparently a fallacy.

I know logic sails way the fuck over your tiny little head. We’ve already seen that you discuss science without understanding it. So why would logic be any different for you?

LOL
"alleged Consensus"?
I have a long running thread start on it, and have cited this Scores of Times beside.
The Link continues with much more detail

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

[......]
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO National or International Scientific body any longer rejects the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30].


With EVERY Post HackAgain Demonstrates his Breathtaking Stupidity.
EVERY POST! - Including Below.
`

 

[BackAgain]

LOL
"alleged Consensus"?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

[......]
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO National or International Scientific body any longer rejects the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30].


`

Yes. Alleged consensus.

And “consensus” is meaningless anyway.

;

 

[Dagosa]

Instead, I was merely pointing out that consensus plays zero role in i

Assuming you know that the word “ consensus” just means “general agreement among the plurality” of a group; you assuming that’s meaningless simple means you listen to instead the few scatter brains who are outside of the community of climate science practiced by every university, Govt agency and related corporation in the world. Really, there is no one left for your side but fools.

 

[Dagosa]

Yes. Alleged consensus.

And “consensus” is meaningless anyway.

;

You’re afraid to even post the meaning of the word “ consensus” but just regurgitating the tripe of fools.