Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[Saigon]

S.J -

What you claim:

you point the finger at the only countries that are making an effort to limit pollution, and ignore the ones who aren't.

What I posted:

absolutely China is the worst polluter on the planet - who said otherwise?

 

[S.J.]

S.J -

What you claim:

you point the finger at the only countries that are making an effort to limit pollution, and ignore the ones who aren't.

What I posted:

absolutely China is the worst polluter on the planet - who said otherwise?

Like I said, you finally acknowledged it after it was shoved down your throat. Do I really have to go back and quote your previous comments?

 

[bripat9643]

S.J. -

I do realise that at times it is very difficult for posters raised on blogs and tabloids to deal with arguments based on facts and genuine information, but I can't say that bothers me unduly.

If you want to believe posters here are somehow defending China from criticism, go right ahead.

When you post a fact, perhaps that might become relevant. However, the fact is that almost everything you post is leftist horseshit. The appeal to authority is your favorite leftist logical fallacy.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Posting definitions from dictionaries is not an "appeal to authority" and if you think it is, you need to research what the phrase means.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Posting definitions from dictionaries is not an "appeal to authority" and if you think it is, you need to research what the phrase means.

Yes it is, especially when you claim it's impossible for the dictionary definition to be wrong. That's the ultimate appeal to authority.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

I don't think you understand the concept of a 'fallacious appeal to authority'.

The idea is fallacious if I cite someone who is:
a) not an expert
b) not an expert in this field
c) may be joking, incapacitated or is likely to be wrong from some reason
d) is being cited on the basis of their fame, not their expertise in this area

It is NOT the same thing as citing expertise.

Posting definitions of words from a dictionary is merely citing expertise, particularly as we can be sure that the dictionary is correct, because all other dictionaries are agree, and no dictionaries disagree.

You reasoning is based purely and simply on wanting to re-write history, and to do that you need to re-write dictionaries.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Within a global perspective, the Tea Party is in no way definining of conservatism. If anything, it's a bit of a dinosaur - and the policy on climate change is defining of that.

I'm not saying that is good or bad, but if aliens landed and wanted an example of where conservative politics are at, I think the UK and Germany are much more typical and middle-of-the-road examples. Both tend to be very fiscally conservative, but more liberal socially.


Really the key element here is that many posters who sit to the right of the Tea Party see anything left of the Tea Party as being left wing. In fact, most conservatives around the world are left of the Tea Party, closer to the moderate wing of the Republicans.

This completely explains why a half dozen posters here look at climate science and see only left wing conspiracy, because from an extreme position ANYTHING is going to look left wing after a while. It's a very distorted view of the world - just as the view of the extreme left is.

the 'tea party' is just a bunch of concerned Americans from both sides of the aisle (and there are lots of us) who want to conserve our American values (however it has been redefined and slimed by the left wing media)....

are you American or not....? if not i can see where you don't really understand...and why you think of 'conservatives' in a different light...

environmental politics has an agenda.....it is an activist movement that seeks to transform world values and world structures of society.....

...and much of it is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and our freedoms here in America.....THAT is why we look at things from a different point of view....and why we expose frauds like Al Gore....the IPCC 'hockey stick' fraud...and threats like Agenda 21....and why we don't want this biased 'green' propaganda in our childrens' classrooms....

Yeah, environmental politics (policy) has an agenda. It's to prevent environmental degradation and to clean up the environment in which we live and to which we are dependent for our continued collective survival. That would make us at least as smart as an animal inhabiting a burrow since even an animal is smart enough not to foul his own living environment. (Translation: they don't crap in their own homes)

that is the 'do-gooder happy face' they present to the public...

take Agenda 21 for example...it all sounds 'green' and sensible and many ideas ARE sensible but international codes.....i.e., CONTROLS.....are being implemented AS WELL right under our noses....after the 'codes' are established along comes 'code enforcement'...

did you know many enlightened Democrats oppose Agenda 21...? the GOP officially opposes it in their platform....of course the far leftist media has suppressed any mention of it during campaigns....mustn't let the public get wind of such things.....

read this to to get an idea how Agenda 21 control through 'sustainable development' codes is being implemented right here in our communities....our property rights are disappearing....control of American citizens is increasing....undermining our Constitutional rights....while instilling this subversive web of international socialist control...

The same year that Bill Clinton established the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, the International Code Council was also created.

The International Code Council has developed a large number of “international codes” which are intended to replace existing building codes all over the United States. The following is a list of these codes from Wikipedia…

International Building Code
International Residential Code
International Fire Code
International Plumbing Code
International Mechanical Code
International Fuel Gas Code
International Energy Conservation Code
ICC Performance Code
International Wildland Urban Interface Code
International Existing Building Code
International Property Maintenance Code
International Private Sewage Disposal Code
International Zoning Code
International Green Construction Code

These codes are very long and exceedingly boring, and those that write them know that hardly anyone will ever read them.

And for the most part, they contain a lot of things that are contained in existing building codes or that are common sense.

But a lot of poison has also been inserted into these codes. If you read them carefully, the influence of Agenda 21 is painfully obvious.

....

She said, “UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.”

“This is not a conspiracy theory,” she told the council. “This is for real.”

She said the International Property Maintenance Code had been adopted in Montgomery County, but the county “has already gotten rid of it” because of its dictatorial direction.

“This is not what Summit Hill and the United States is about,” she said.

Council members pooh-poohed her assessment. “In my opinion, the International Property Maintenance Code is to protect citizens,” said Council President Michael Kokinda.

It would be great if these codes were just about public safety. But that is simply not the case. Sadly, these codes are often used to fine or even imprison homeowners that haven’t done anything wrong. Sometimes “code violations” are even used as justification to legally steal property from law-abiding homeowners.

A post on the Freedom Reigns Radio blog detailed some of the things that are often done in the name of “code enforcement”…

1) The ‘Code Official’ – anybody the jurisdiction calls – a ‘Code Official’ – is the sole interpreter – no due process – Gestapo!

2) Every day an offense occurs is a separate mandatory misdemeanor – $555/day and/or a month in jail in Charleston, W.Va. They can fine you out of your home and jail you at their whim!

3) Anything the ‘Code Official’ says is not in good working condition – sticky window, dented or plugged gutter, torn window screen – whatever he says is not in good working order – hundreds of dollars of fines per day and/or jail time – usually a month – for every day the offense occurs.

4) Any unsanitary condition – whatever the ‘Code Official’ says is an ‘unsanitary condition’ – empty pop cans – puddles – dog droppings on your property – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day.

5) Any plant that the ‘Code Official’ says is a ‘noxious weed’ – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day. He can steal raw land.

6) He can fine you out of your home and jail you with no due process. Any court proceedings are window dressing as there is no remedy associated with this ‘code.’

7) It can be ‘adopted’ – just by an ‘administrative decree.’
WITHOUT COURT ACTION OR NOTICE THE CODE OFFICIAL CAN:
1) Enter your house whenever he – the sole interpreter – deems reasonable.
2) Prevent you from entering your house.
3) Tear your house down with your stuff in it.
4) Bill you for the demolition.
5) Place a lien on it for fines and/or demolition charges – steal it.
6) And ‘best’ of all, no insurance I know of will cover your losses.

You’re left w/a house and your ‘stuff’ in a landfill – and any remaining unpaid mortgage, any remaining fines, any remaining taxes, and any remaining demolition charges after they steal your property

These codes restrict what homeowners can do with their own properties in thousands of different ways. If you rebel against one of the codes, the penalties can be extremely harsh.

And there is often “selective enforcement” of these codes. That means that they will leave most people alone but they will come down really hard on people that they do not like. You could even end up with a SWAT team on your doorstep.

Just ask some of the people who have been through this kind of thing.

Even if you have your mortgage completely paid off, that doesn’t mean that you really “own” your property. If you don’t pay your taxes and obey the “codes”, you could lose your property very rapidly.

The philosophy behind all of this is the same philosophy behind Agenda 21. The elite believe that you cannot be trusted to do the “right thing” with your own property and that your activity must be “managed” for the greater good. They believe that by controlling you and restricting your liberties that they are “saving the planet”.

» Agenda 21 Is Being Rammed Down The Throats Of Local Communities All Over America Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[JoeNormal]

It sounds like you're saying that Mother Teresa and the guy down at the local used car lot are on the same ethical plane because they're both people.

Credentials exist for a reason. Once somebody goes through the considerable hell it takes to earn a PhD, the argument should be over that they'll make stupid mistakes in logic or fail to take into account the issues that average people consider themselves clever enough to consider. From that basis, the minutiae can be dismissed and a real discussion of the merits of particular research can begin. Cons generally don't want to do that though. They want to take every argument from ground zero and discuss stupid shit over and over until any deeper meaning is thoroughly lost.

You're an idiot. Your argument is called "the appeal to authority." It's a logical fallacy. Credentials don't constitute proof of anything, dipstick.

Wow, way to incorectly site a logical falacy. Maybe this is why you're so consistently misinformed. You think it's against the rules to listen to the authorities on any subject.

Here's a little guide to 'argument from authority'.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

I don't think you understand the concept of a 'fallacious appeal to authority'.

The idea is fallacious if I cite someone who is:
a) not an expert
b) not an expert in this field
c) may be joking, incapacitated or is likely to be wrong from some reason
d) is being cited on the basis of their fame, not their expertise in this area

It is NOT the same thing as citing expertise.

Posting definitions of words from a dictionary is merely citing expertise, particularly as we can be sure that the dictionary is correct, because all other dictionaries are agree, and no dictionaries disagree.

You reasoning is based purely and simply on wanting to re-write history, and to do that you need to re-write dictionaries.

Every appeal to authority is fallacious. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of science and logic. The irrefutable fact is that authorities are often dead wrong, especially about something as difficult to measure or prove as anthropogenic global warming. The fact that you believe there's such a thing as a legitimate authority only shows that you are immune to logic.

Contrary to your belief, Dictionaries are not infallible. Even if every dictionary agrees, that still doesn't prove they are correct. Until you get over the contrary belief you will remain logically challenged.

In the year 1500 every "valid authority" insisted that the Earth was the center of the solar system. They were all dead wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

It sounds like you're saying that Mother Teresa and the guy down at the local used car lot are on the same ethical plane because they're both people.

Credentials exist for a reason. Once somebody goes through the considerable hell it takes to earn a PhD, the argument should be over that they'll make stupid mistakes in logic or fail to take into account the issues that average people consider themselves clever enough to consider. From that basis, the minutiae can be dismissed and a real discussion of the merits of particular research can begin. Cons generally don't want to do that though. They want to take every argument from ground zero and discuss stupid shit over and over until any deeper meaning is thoroughly lost.

You're an idiot. Your argument is called "the appeal to authority." It's a logical fallacy. Credentials don't constitute proof of anything, dipstick.

Wow, way to incorectly site a logical falacy. Maybe this is why you're so consistently misinformed. You think it's against the rules to listen to the authorities on any subject.

Here's a little guide to 'argument from authority'.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're an even bigger moron. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of logic. If you insist that something is true because some expert says it's true, all you've done is prove you are immune to logic. What you and Saigon refuse to acknowledge is that authorities are often wrong. They aren't infallible. Until you can find an omniscient being to answer your questions, the appeal to authority will always be a fallacy.

It's clear that one reason liberal turds have fallen for the AGW scam is that they are incapable of rational thought.

I find it hilarious that you quote an authority to prove that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. Your wiki article is wrong and the guy who wrote it is a moron. There is no such thing as a valid appeal to authority.

 

[Obamanation]

Global Warming! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Lefties will buy ANYHTING!!!!

 

[Mustang]

Global Warming! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Lefties will buy ANYHTING!!!!

People also used to laugh at the notion of the existence of microorganisms and the belief that those very same seemingly invisible microscopic life forms could be the cause of diseases. They also scoffed at the concept that washing hands could cut down on the transmission of diseases both within a hospital setting (like an operating room) and in everyday life.

Today, we can't even imagine a world in which those ideas aren't anything other than universally accepted fact.

 

[JoeNormal]

You're an idiot. Your argument is called "the appeal to authority." It's a logical fallacy. Credentials don't constitute proof of anything, dipstick.

Wow, way to incorectly site a logical falacy. Maybe this is why you're so consistently misinformed. You think it's against the rules to listen to the authorities on any subject.

Here's a little guide to 'argument from authority'.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're an even bigger moron. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of logic. If you insist that something is true because some expert says it's true, all you've done is prove you are immune to logic. What you and Saigon refuse to acknowledge is that authorities are often wrong. They aren't infallible. Until you can find an omniscient being to answer your questions, the appeal to authority will always be a fallacy.

It's clear that one reason liberal turds have fallen for the AGW scam is that they are incapable of rational thought.

I find it hilarious that you quote an authority to prove that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. Your wiki article is wrong and the guy who wrote it is a moron. There is no such thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Find a more trustworthy source that refutes it then. Oh wait, that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it. Come to think of it, any information that you might want to use to prove pretty much anything would come down to an appeal to authority. I guess you're pretty much condemned to be an ignorant twit then, aren't you.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, way to incorectly site a logical falacy. Maybe this is why you're so consistently misinformed. You think it's against the rules to listen to the authorities on any subject.

Here's a little guide to 'argument from authority'.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're an even bigger moron. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of logic. If you insist that something is true because some expert says it's true, all you've done is prove you are immune to logic. What you and Saigon refuse to acknowledge is that authorities are often wrong. They aren't infallible. Until you can find an omniscient being to answer your questions, the appeal to authority will always be a fallacy.

It's clear that one reason liberal turds have fallen for the AGW scam is that they are incapable of rational thought.

I find it hilarious that you quote an authority to prove that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. Your wiki article is wrong and the guy who wrote it is a moron. There is no such thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Find a more trustworthy source that refutes it then. Oh wait, that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it. Come to think of it, any information that you might want to use to prove pretty much anything would come down to an appeal to authority. I guess you're pretty much condemned to be an ignorant twit then, aren't you.

Obviously, you don't even understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." Using facts and logic to prove a point is beyond you. If some authority doesn't tell you what to think, you probably run around like a chicken that has just been decapitated.

The AGW cultists will have to prove their claims using facts and logic. Bribing enough scientists to form a "consensus" will only convince morons who are incapable of rational thought.

 

[JoeNormal]

You're an even bigger moron. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of logic. If you insist that something is true because some expert says it's true, all you've done is prove you are immune to logic. What you and Saigon refuse to acknowledge is that authorities are often wrong. They aren't infallible. Until you can find an omniscient being to answer your questions, the appeal to authority will always be a fallacy.

It's clear that one reason liberal turds have fallen for the AGW scam is that they are incapable of rational thought.

I find it hilarious that you quote an authority to prove that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. Your wiki article is wrong and the guy who wrote it is a moron. There is no such thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Find a more trustworthy source that refutes it then. Oh wait, that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it. Come to think of it, any information that you might want to use to prove pretty much anything would come down to an appeal to authority. I guess you're pretty much condemned to be an ignorant twit then, aren't you.

Obviously, you don't even understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." Using facts and logic to prove a point is beyond you. If some authority doesn't tell you what to think, you probably run around like a chicken that has just been decapitated.

The AGW cultists will have to prove their claims using facts and logic. Bribing enough scientists to form a "consensus" will only convince morons who are incapable of rational thought.

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

 

[bripat9643]

Obviously, you don't even understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." Using facts and logic to prove a point is beyond you. If some authority doesn't tell you what to think, you probably run around like a chicken that has just been decapitated.

The AGW cultists will have to prove their claims using facts and logic. Bribing enough scientists to form a "consensus" will only convince morons who are incapable of rational thought.

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

The Sufi tradition? No wonder you're incapable of rational thought. This stuff is crap. It's based in Islam, which is the biggest pile of irrational crap ever conceived of. If there is one thing Sufism won't do it's tell you how to separate facts and reality from bullshit.

 

[Mustang]

Obviously, you don't even understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." Using facts and logic to prove a point is beyond you. If some authority doesn't tell you what to think, you probably run around like a chicken that has just been decapitated.

The AGW cultists will have to prove their claims using facts and logic. Bribing enough scientists to form a "consensus" will only convince morons who are incapable of rational thought.

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

The Sufi tradition? No wonder you're incapable of rational thought. This stuff is crap. It's based in Islam, which is the biggest pile of irrational crap ever conceived of. If there is one thing Sufism won't do it's tell you how to separate facts and reality from bullshit.

You were born in the wrong era. Your medieval attitudes about everything under the sun would have made you feel more at home in the European Middle Ages...except for one major problem that almost certainly would have been an insurmountable obstacle for you. That's the fact that you have a tendency to shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about. They would have gutted you like a fish the first time you crossed that line in those days, while here, in modern day liberal America, you get to keep on posting to your little heart's delight. See how lucky you really are?

 

[westwall]

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

The Sufi tradition? No wonder you're incapable of rational thought. This stuff is crap. It's based in Islam, which is the biggest pile of irrational crap ever conceived of. If there is one thing Sufism won't do it's tell you how to separate facts and reality from bullshit.

You were born in the wrong era. Your medieval attitudes about everything under the sun would have made you feel more at home in the European Middle Ages...except for one major problem that almost certainly would have been an insurmountable obstacle for you. That's the fact that you have a tendency to shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about. They would have gutted you like a fish the first time you crossed that line in those days, while here, in modern day liberal America, you get to keep on posting to your little heart's delight. See how lucky you really are?

Clearly you don't know much about history either. Save blasphemy you could say almost anything you wanted to. And, if you were in the Court of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II you would have been feted on a regular basis.

 

[Mustang]

The Sufi tradition? No wonder you're incapable of rational thought. This stuff is crap. It's based in Islam, which is the biggest pile of irrational crap ever conceived of. If there is one thing Sufism won't do it's tell you how to separate facts and reality from bullshit.

You were born in the wrong era. Your medieval attitudes about everything under the sun would have made you feel more at home in the European Middle Ages...except for one major problem that almost certainly would have been an insurmountable obstacle for you. That's the fact that you have a tendency to shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about. They would have gutted you like a fish the first time you crossed that line in those days, while here, in modern day liberal America, you get to keep on posting to your little heart's delight. See how lucky you really are?

Clearly you don't know much about history either. Save blasphemy you could say almost anything you wanted to. And, if you were in the Court of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II you would have been feted on a regular basis.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. There was nothing analogous to Constitutional rights in those days. Neither was there any concept of citizen's rights. In those days, the powers that be didn't need much in the way of a motive to punish someone pretty much any way they damn well saw fit if and when that person stepped out of line. And who was going to protest? The equivalent of the ACLU that conservatives love to condemn?

 

[thereisnospoon]

S.J. -

I don't see the point in comparing the US with Zimbabwe, Fiji or Guam - hence I generally use other western countries as a basis for comparison.

This doesn't exempt other countries from responsibility - it just means that I think they belong in a different category. China and India pollute terribly, obviously, but their situation is quite different to the EU and US. That isn't 'deception', it's just common sense.

No, it is you on mission to punish the US with this climate change crap that if those in support get their way, will crush our economy.
Not one single shred of scientific data has been produced that, for example, carbon taxes, the Kyoto Protocol and other schemes have reduced pollution.