Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[Crick]

That's called "appeal to authority", Corky....You'd fail a 7th-grade debate club argument with that slop.

No, you would fail because you don't understand "appeal to authority".

 

[Oddball]

No, you would fail because you don't understand "appeal to authority".

I understand it just fine....It's a presumption of the infallibility of the "experts".

Re-examining the Expert, and the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority - Tekedia

Sometimes not too long ago, I was in a conversation with someone who said something that was obviously wrong. “Excuse me, but that’s not true,” I responded. This was something that had to do with the sequence of a particular trail of events and he got them mixed up uncontrollably at some point...

www.tekedia.com

 

[Crick]

I understand it just fine....It's a presumption of the infallibility of the "experts".

Re-examining the Expert, and the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority - Tekedia

Sometimes not too long ago, I was in a conversation with someone who said something that was obviously wrong. “Excuse me, but that’s not true,” I responded. This was something that had to do with the sequence of a particular trail of events and he got them mixed up uncontrollably at some point...

www.tekedia.com

Wrong.

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

 

[Oddball]

Wrong.

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

I didn't say that....I just linked you to an article about the other aspect of appeal to authority -the presumption of the infallibility of "experts"- and you promptly blew it off.

The only "depth of knowledge" that your warmer "experts" have, is that of being able to keep the fuding flowing for their pseudo-scientific grift.

 

[Crick]

I didn't say that....I just linked you to an article about the other aspect of appeal to authority -the presumption of the infallibility of "experts"- and you promptly blew it off.

The only "depth of knowledge" that your warmer "experts" have, is that of being able to keep the fuding flowing for their pseudo-scientific grift.

The experts I refer to have PhDs in the hard sciences and are renowned in their fields. Yours tend to have journalism degrees and be employed by right wing propaganda rags.

 

[jbrownson0831]

The Warming Theory and the hockey stick graph were so derided that the Swamp were forced to change their Fake Warming Chaos narrative to Climate Change .
There is no evidence for CC in terms of linking it to human contribution .
The energy flow for Climate is from the Sun and Galaxy centre . The dim witted and Gullibles find that difficult to absorb .
Deep State use it( human culpability ) as a weapon of Fear to win control of and to gain compliance by the Sheeple of ignorant pseudo science assertions .

Dims cannot fathom anything greater than themselves being responsible for weather, climate change...there cant be a God so we control everything.

 

[jwoodie]

There is only one argument and that is scientific consensus.

The Age of Unenlightenment has has begun.

 

[jc456]

The experts I refer to have PhDs in the hard sciences and are renowned in their fields. Yours tend to have journalism degrees and be employed by right wing propaganda rags.

name them then, I've asked you repeatedly and yet your PHD group doesn't seem to exist. I wanted at least the 77 of the 97% group.

 

[jc456]

Dims cannot fathom anything greater than themselves being responsible for weather, climate change...there cant be a God so we control everything.

they don't get that we are part of nature. Their entire argument is invalid for that very reason. Dust to dust you know!!!

 

[jc456]

they don't get that we are part of nature. Their entire argument is invalid for that very reason. Dust to dust you know!!!

We don't exist without plants, and for the most part, plants can't exist without humans.

 

[Kilroy2]

The Age of Unenlightenment has has begun.

Well said by the unenlightened

 

[Kilroy2]

You're talking about politics, not science.

Nobody needs majoritarian vote to physically show that something like Bernoulli's principle works time and time again.....That can be repeated on demand, quantified and falsified, first time, every time.

If there is disagreement then scientific consensus is used. I am not talking about politics.

 

[Crick]

You're talking about politics, not science.

Nobody needs majoritarian vote to physically show that something like Bernoulli's principle works time and time again.....That can be repeated on demand, quantified and falsified, first time, every time.

The verification of scientific theories is accomplished and judged by SCIENTISTS, not the lay public. If you want to determine what SCIENTISTS think of a theory, you need to ASK THEM.

 

[Crick]

That's called "appeal to authority", Corky....You'd fail a 7th-grade debate club argument with that slop.

Have YOU, PERSONALLY made any attempt to validate Anthropogenic Global Warming? Do you know ANYONE who has? Who do you think SHOULD be doing such things and who do you think IS doing such things and HOW would you determine what they found when they did so?

 

[Oddball]

If there is disagreement then scientific consensus is used. I am not talking about politics.

The process of consensus IS politics, dullard.

 

[Oddball]

Have YOU, PERSONALLY made any attempt to validate Anthropogenic Global Warming? Do you know ANYONE who has? Who do you think SHOULD be doing such things and who do you think IS doing such things and HOW would you determine what they found when they did so?

I actually did, when I was fool enough to believe that crap.

Looked into it to try to debunk the "deniers", and found that it completely lacked the aforementioned bullet points of properly verified science....Being someone who looks at sound reason above overheated scaremongering, pretty four-colored charts, and hysterical hypeventiating and hyperbole, I came to the reasoned conclusion that you warmers are as full of shit as were Malthus, Galbraith, Ehrlich, and every other pearl clutching doomsday hustler in history.

There's nobody worse for you doomsaying freaks than a cultist who's been deprogrammed.

 

[Kilroy2]

The process of consensus IS politics, dullard.

The process of consensus IS politics, dullard.

Read the topic again again and if you still don't get it then read it again

Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?​

This maybe news to you but politics is not science.

If you don't understand it then move on cause your just trying to change it to a political discussion of climate change. Anybody who reads your simpleton post can understand why you want to make it political instead of scientific. Cause you have an opinion. But opinions by the general public is just that. Its based on hail mary, my gosh, and general lack of knowledge based on the ability to read tweets and other social media. Heaven forbid if a scientist with the minority tell you something. Does that light bulb come on and never shuts off.

Change the subject - Public consensus on global warming by dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thus you have shown that you do not understand something so basic as scientific consensus and deny it because you have lost. Selective outrage is nothing more that choosing to be outrage due to lack of understanding and wanting to keep what you believe alive without having to proof anything.

Good luck with that.

Consensus positions have been wrong too many times over the centuries, I prefer REPRODUCIBLE research instead which usually takes just ONE person to generate.

 

[Crick]

Consensus positions have been wrong too many times over the centuries, I prefer REPRODUCIBLE research instead which usually takes just ONE person to generate.

Do you think the world's scientists are unfamiliar with the methods to verify theories?

 

[Kilroy2]

Consensus positions have been wrong too many times over the centuries, I prefer REPRODUCIBLE research instead which usually takes just ONE person to generate.

They have been using reproducible research for global climate
but it in its infancy. There are some things they need to figure out.