OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[Crick]

Only when what they say makes sense. Titles don't matter. Content matters.

I strongly suggest you read up on circular arguments

 

[ding]

I strongly suggest you read up on circular arguments

What part of content matters more than titles is circular?

 

[jc456]

An appeal to an authority that has actual expertise in the field under discussion IS a valid argument.

name one of those experts that's a climate scientist?

 

[jc456]

What part of content matters more than titles is circular?

when one can't provide an argument.

 

[Crick]

What part of content matters more than titles is circular?

What is circular is assuming that you, a layperson, are able to judge whether the comments of an expert "make sense". If you had such ability, you would have had no need to consult the expert in the first place.

 

[ding]

What is circular is assuming that you, a layperson, are able to judge whether the comments of an expert "make sense". If you had such ability, you would have had no need to consult the expert in the first place.

Of course I can. Especially when the comments are never placed in the context of what drove the climate of the planet for the last 50 million years.

 

[jc456]

What is circular is assuming that you, a layperson, are able to judge whether the comments of an expert "make sense". If you had such ability, you would have had no need to consult the expert in the first place.

You’re an expert? Ahhhahahah

 

[Crick]

Of course I can. Especially when the comments are never placed in the context of what drove the climate of the planet for the last 50 million years.

I can see a full course in logic would help you. The discussion was generic. Your complaint here, besides being based on a falsehood, is not.

 

[ding]

I can see a full course in logic would help you. The discussion was generic. Your complaint here, besides being based on a falsehood, is not.

It doesn't matter if the discussion was generic or not, all of their work is without context to what actually drives the climate of the planet. Your accusing me of lacking logic is intended to distract from this point. The fact that you can't say, no, here's their discussion on how earth's climate has changed and why it changed is why you need a distraction. You have no integrity.

 

[ding]

The reason they won't provide the proper context is because the context explains why the climate fluctuates and has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

 

[fncceo]

Tony Heller is one man and has virtually no training in anything resembling climate science.

One man, with virtually no training in Newtonian physics, managed to turn the science of physics on it's ear ...

 

[Crick]

It doesn't matter if the discussion was generic or not, all of their work is without context to what actually drives the climate of the planet. Your accusing me of lacking logic is intended to distract from this point. The fact that you can't say, no, here's their discussion on how earth's climate has changed and why it changed is why you need a distraction. You have no integrity.

Do you expect anyone to actually believe there are no published studies covering your wee obsessions? Where the fuck do you think the data you keep throwing around came from? A K-Mart Blue Light Special? Your rejection of the greenhouse effect and AGW marks you as ignorant in knowledge, in reasoning, in judgement or all three.

 

[Crick]

One man, with virtually no training in Newtonian physics, managed to turn the science of physics on it's ear ...

View attachment 741208

From his Wikipedia article: "In 1897, at the age of 17, he enrolled in the mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Swiss Federal polytechnic school in Zürich, graduating in 1900". And if you think Tony Heller qualifies to polish Einstein's shoes, you're fucking hallucinating.

 

[fncceo]

Science is a wonderful thing. When correctly applied, scientific method gives humanity a way to study any topic objectively and dispassionately. The correct application of the scientific method has brought us many technological advances that have improved the lives of virtually everyone on this planet.

That being said, any tool used by humans can be mis-used by them. This is never more evident than when the scientific method is used to further a political agenda (see example below)

When anyone proposes punishments, castigation, or even censorship of anyone who disagrees with "established science" they are not only violating the principles of the scientific method, they are leading us down a trail back to the Dark Ages. They are using the same logic that brought us The Inquisition, The Crusades, and the Bonfire of The Vanities.

Climate Science (nee Meteorology, which, by the way, has nothing to do with meteors) has gone from being a discipline of study that invites open debate and speculation to something more akin to Theology, where the basic tenets are not subject to discussion and all argument is devolved to discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (one can never discuss if angels actually exist or if they are able to dance at all).

One a discipline of study has been castrated to this degree, it ceases to become science or have any useful scientific value. All we have now is politicians and bureaucrats, with social agendas, picking over the corpse of what was once a scientific discipline to satisfy their appetite for advancing their agenda.

 

[Crick]

Science is a wonderful thing. When correctly applied, scientific method gives humanity a way to study any topic objectively and dispassionately. The correct application of the scientific method has brought us many technological advances that have improved the lives of virtually everyone on this planet.

That being said, any tool used by humans can be mis-used by them. This is never more evident than when the scientific method is used to further a political agenda (see example below)

View attachment 741236

When anyone proposes punishments, castigation, or even censorship of anyone who disagrees with "established science" they are not only violating the principles of the scientific method, they are leading us down a trail back to the Dark Ages. They are using the same logic that brought us The Inquisition, The Crusades, and the Bonfire of The Vanities.

Climate Science (nee Meteorology, which, by the way, has nothing to do with meteors) has gone from being a discipline of study that invites open debate and speculation to something more akin to Theology, where the basic tenets are not subject to discussion and all argument is devolved to discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (one can never discuss if angels actually exist or if they are able to dance at all).

One a discipline of study has been castrated to this degree, it ceases to become science or have any useful scientific value. All we have now is politicians and bureaucrats, with social agendas, picking over the corpse of what was once a scientific discipline to satisfy their appetite for advancing their agenda.

So, how much time do you think should be spent trying to show that disease is caused by malevolent spirits? How much effort should we put into seeing if the Earth is hollow? Do you think science should really have bought so heavily into heliocenticity? The positions re AGW you would like to see debated in the town square aren't being denied publicationbecause of any hostility or fear but because doing so is a waste of finite resources. You seem to suggest that peer review is anti-science. What do you think is the purpose of such review, of duplication, of experimentation? It is YOU who are attempting a shortcut through the scientific method.

 

[fncceo]

So, how much time do you think should be spent trying to show that disease is caused by malevolent spirits? How much effort should we put into seeing if the Earth is hollow?

"Many hypotheses proposed by scientists as well as by non-scientists turn out to be wrong. But science is a self-correcting enterprise. To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous standards of evidence. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky’s work. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights."

Carl Sagan on the book "Worlds in Collision" by Emmanuel Velikovsky.

I would be more than happy to discuss the connection between disease and malevolent spirits when you can show me how the forces of malevolency are measured and agree upon a standard unit for that measurement ... I'm suggesting mill-Lovecrafts ...

 

[Crick]

"Many hypotheses proposed by scientists as well as by non-scientists turn out to be wrong. But science is a self-correcting enterprise. To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous standards of evidence. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky’s work. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights."

Carl Sagan on the book "Worlds in Collision" by Emmanuel Velikovsky.

I would be more than happy to discuss the connection between disease and malevolent spirits when you can show me how the forces of malevolency are measured and agree upon a standard unit for that measurement ... I'm suggesting mill-Lovecrafts ...

View attachment 741271

"To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous standards of evidence"

And what is done with those that do not?

 

[ding]

Do you expect anyone to actually believe there are no published studies covering your wee obsessions? Where the fuck do you think the data you keep throwing around came from? A K-Mart Blue Light Special? Your rejection of the greenhouse effect and AGW marks you as ignorant in knowledge, in reasoning, in judgement or all three.

It's in the geologic record, dummy. Feel free to post something that disputes it. The dominant climate feature of the planet are the ice caps at each pole.

 

[jc456]

From his Wikipedia article: "In 1897, at the age of 17, he enrolled in the mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Swiss Federal polytechnic school in Zürich, graduating in 1900". And if you think Tony Heller qualifies to polish Einstein's shoes, you're fucking hallucinating.

I know climategate was real!!! what else do you need?

 

[fncceo]

"To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous standards of evidence"

Rigorous standards of evidence means reproducible experiments and accurate, verifiable predictions. None of which, to date, AGW proponents have been able to produce. Until that happens, we have to entertain the possibility of different explanations for variations in climate patterns.

Patterns that, according to the scientific record, have gone through many, much more drastic, changes since well before human and animal life existed on this planet.

Human produced carbon emissions could be having an effect on our climate. However, until that is proved to a certainty, by the reproducible experiments and verifiable predictions mentioned above, we shouldn't go destroying our economy and expanding government powers in a desperate attempt to head off something we don't fully understand nor know how to control.

All actions of man (particularly the large-scale ones) have unintended consequences. Flood a desert, destroy an ecosystem. Build a dam and cause widespread deforestation. End hunger and disease, cause an overpopulation problem, The process used for creating artificial fertilizers also allowed Germany to continue to produce ammunition and allowed the First World War to go on three years longer than it should have, at the cost of millions of lives.