Republicans Against Science

[konradv]

Here's my theory, this is before reading the thread by the way.

Most people in this thread have invested their belief system in science. They believe they have done significant research (which 99% of them haven't because they lack either a) the intellectual capacity b) the funds c) the time d) some combination of a, b and c) and ignore the fact that most of the research they accept is based on whether the researcher's point agrees with them.

"Peer review" doesn't mean anything. Neither does scientifically proven or accredited by... You have no idea who the peers that reviewed something are and you know jack squat about the references, backgrounds or character of the people whose articles you're reading. I'm not against science, I am against the scientific community. I do believe that they are for sale and I have a close personal friend in the research community who has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated how the scientific community works. It is driven by money and ideology. Many scientists are like politicians in that they get into the business with pure motives but over time they are corrupted by the need for funding for their projects.

With all of that, I will make a suggestion. Instead of quoting scientists, why not look at the journals/articles look at the questions that you are trying to answer. Next, try to find holes in the theory. Stop advocating this study and not that one and look at the actual data because there is absolutely nothing scientific about "scientists say so"...

Mike

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

That's not deductive reasoning...That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Wrong, that IS deductive reasoning. You'd only be correct, if there were no established link between CO2 and IR radiation! What part of my logical syllogism* do you think has a flaw? Statement #1 is true. Statement #2 is true. Statement #3 follows logically from 1 & 2. Where's the problem?!?!

*- A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") or logical appeal is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition.
Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Texanmike]

Here's my theory, this is before reading the thread by the way.

Most people in this thread have invested their belief system in science. They believe they have done significant research (which 99% of them haven't because they lack either a) the intellectual capacity b) the funds c) the time d) some combination of a, b and c) and ignore the fact that most of the research they accept is based on whether the researcher's point agrees with them.

"Peer review" doesn't mean anything. Neither does scientifically proven or accredited by... You have no idea who the peers that reviewed something are and you know jack squat about the references, backgrounds or character of the people whose articles you're reading. I'm not against science, I am against the scientific community. I do believe that they are for sale and I have a close personal friend in the research community who has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated how the scientific community works. It is driven by money and ideology. Many scientists are like politicians in that they get into the business with pure motives but over time they are corrupted by the need for funding for their projects.

With all of that, I will make a suggestion. Instead of quoting scientists, why not look at the journals/articles look at the questions that you are trying to answer. Next, try to find holes in the theory. Stop advocating this study and not that one and look at the actual data because there is absolutely nothing scientific about "scientists say so"...

Mike

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

So that proves it? I'm glad you vetted your theory so well. I hope you're an actor or a poet or something because I can see you are horrible at critiquing anything.

Mike

 

[Flopper]

Flopper:

Oh yea, It's grand conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and dozens of the most prestigious scientific societies, and academies of science whose purpose is promote world socialism

You're conflating politically instituted panels and academies who excersize "selective" membership and participation with PRESTIGE?

How do you explain those instances (post above) of "prestigious scientists" complaining about the bias and politicization of their work? No comments on those Flopper?

There are HUNDREDS of examples of blatant manufactured consensus in this GW issue. And it only takes a couple to taint "the science" of any work that comes out of a cesspool like this.. Your nose must not be working to detect the taint or you have no appreciation for the normal processes of how science gets kicked forward.

Of course there are blatant manufactured consensus, evidence, misquotes, and out right lies. Google "Globial Warming" and you'll find 78,400,000 pages of hits. There are tens of thousands of web sites devoted to global warming support or denial with millions or articles by scientists, economist, politicians, political hacks, and conspiracy theorists.

The planet is warming and the evidence that man is responsible is rising. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

 

[konradv]

Here's my theory, this is before reading the thread by the way.

Most people in this thread have invested their belief system in science. They believe they have done significant research (which 99% of them haven't because they lack either a) the intellectual capacity b) the funds c) the time d) some combination of a, b and c) and ignore the fact that most of the research they accept is based on whether the researcher's point agrees with them.

"Peer review" doesn't mean anything. Neither does scientifically proven or accredited by... You have no idea who the peers that reviewed something are and you know jack squat about the references, backgrounds or character of the people whose articles you're reading. I'm not against science, I am against the scientific community. I do believe that they are for sale and I have a close personal friend in the research community who has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated how the scientific community works. It is driven by money and ideology. Many scientists are like politicians in that they get into the business with pure motives but over time they are corrupted by the need for funding for their projects.

With all of that, I will make a suggestion. Instead of quoting scientists, why not look at the journals/articles look at the questions that you are trying to answer. Next, try to find holes in the theory. Stop advocating this study and not that one and look at the actual data because there is absolutely nothing scientific about "scientists say so"...

Mike

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

So that proves it? I'm glad you vetted your theory so well. I hope you're an actor or a poet or something because I can see you are horrible at critiquing anything.

Mike

The three lines prove it, not just the one you cherry-picked. Where's the flaw? You obviously think there is one, but haven't given much in the way of an explanation why. I'm not a mind reader. Just exactly what is your complaint?

 

[Oddball]

Flopper:

Oh yea, It's grand conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and dozens of the most prestigious scientific societies, and academies of science whose purpose is promote world socialism

You're conflating politically instituted panels and academies who excersize "selective" membership and participation with PRESTIGE?

How do you explain those instances (post above) of "prestigious scientists" complaining about the bias and politicization of their work? No comments on those Flopper?

There are HUNDREDS of examples of blatant manufactured consensus in this GW issue. And it only takes a couple to taint "the science" of any work that comes out of a cesspool like this.. Your nose must not be working to detect the taint or you have no appreciation for the normal processes of how science gets kicked forward.

Of course there are blatant manufactured consensus, evidence, misquotes, and out right lies. Google "Globial Warming" and you'll find 78,400,000 pages of hits. There are tens of thousands of web sites devoted to global warming support or denial with millions or articles by scientists, economist, politicians, political hacks, and conspiracy theorists.

The planet is warming and the evidence that man is responsible is rising. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

Appeal to authority isn't science either, pal.

 

[konradv]

Flopper:

You're conflating politically instituted panels and academies who excersize "selective" membership and participation with PRESTIGE?

How do you explain those instances (post above) of "prestigious scientists" complaining about the bias and politicization of their work? No comments on those Flopper?

There are HUNDREDS of examples of blatant manufactured consensus in this GW issue. And it only takes a couple to taint "the science" of any work that comes out of a cesspool like this.. Your nose must not be working to detect the taint or you have no appreciation for the normal processes of how science gets kicked forward.

Of course there are blatant manufactured consensus, evidence, misquotes, and out right lies. Google "Globial Warming" and you'll find 78,400,000 pages of hits. There are tens of thousands of web sites devoted to global warming support or denial with millions or articles by scientists, economist, politicians, political hacks, and conspiracy theorists.

The planet is warming and the evidence that man is responsible is rising. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

Appeal to authority isn't science either, pal.

Authority isn't good enough for you. Logic isn't good enough for you. What do you really bring to the table, but overwhelming bias?!?!

 

[Oddball]

Wrong, that IS deductive reasoning. You'd only be correct, if there were no established link between CO2 and IR radiation! What part of my logical syllogism* do you think has a flaw? Statement #1 is true. Statement #2 is true. Statement #3 follows logically from 1 & 2. Where's the problem?!?!

*- A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") or logical appeal is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition.
Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As long as you continue not to be able to quantify that claim, which you cannot, all you have is post hoc ergo propter hoc...Especially in light of the established fact that CO2 concentrations have been shown follow temperature increases, rather than leading them.

 

[Oddball]

The planet is warming and the evidence that man is responsible is rising. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

I guess these guys didn't get the memo, huh?

Experiments performed by a European nuclear research group indicate that the sun, not man, determines Earth's temperature. Somewhere, Al Gore just shuddered as an unseasonably cool breeze blows by.

The results from an experiment to mimic Earth's atmosphere by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, tell researchers that the sun has a significant effect on our planet's temperature. Its magnetic field acts as a gateway for cosmic rays, which play a large role in cloud formation.

Consequently, when the sun's magnetic field allows cosmic rays to seed cloud cover, temperatures are cooler. When it restricts cloud formation by deflecting cosmic rays away from Earth, temperatures go up.

<snip>

This new finding of 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes from an experiment that's been ongoing since 2009 is, if we may paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, a big deal. Which is exactly why the mainstream media, with so much invested in global warming hysteria, is letting last week's announcement from CERN pass like a brief summer shower, ignoring it.

Watching A Green Fiction Unravel - Investors.com

 

[konradv]

in light of the established fact that CO2 concentrations have been shown follow temperature increases, rather than leading them.

So how did you quantify that and make the logical deduction that your statement isn't "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? To me it just seems like you're parroting what you've heard elsewhere. Your logic is suspect and your facts are specious. I don't really see where you have a logical leg to stand on. All I'm getting from you are smart-ass rejoinders. That isn't science or logic, either!!!!

 

[Oddball]

in light of the established fact that CO2 concentrations have been shown follow temperature increases, rather than leading them.

So how did you quantify that and make the logical deduction that your statement isn't "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? To me it just seems like you're parroting what you've heard elsewhere. Your logic is suspect and your facts are specious. I don't really see where you have a logical leg to stand on. All I'm getting from you are smart-ass rejoinders. That isn't science or logic, either!!!!

Simple equation:

X increased CO2 = Y temperature increase.

Solve for X & Y...Show your work.

 

[Texanmike]

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

So that proves it? I'm glad you vetted your theory so well. I hope you're an actor or a poet or something because I can see you are horrible at critiquing anything.

Mike

The three lines prove it, not just the one you cherry-picked. Where's the flaw? You obviously think there is one, but haven't given much in the way of an explanation why. I'm not a mind reader. Just exactly what is your complaint?

Its pretty simple. Coorelation does not prove causation.

In Florida more people wear flip flops in the summer.

More people eat ice cream in the summer

Wearing flip flops predisposes someone to eating ice cream.

Mike

 

[konradv]

in light of the established fact that CO2 concentrations have been shown follow temperature increases, rather than leading them.

So how did you quantify that and make the logical deduction that your statement isn't "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? To me it just seems like you're parroting what you've heard elsewhere. Your logic is suspect and your facts are specious. I don't really see where you have a logical leg to stand on. All I'm getting from you are smart-ass rejoinders. That isn't science or logic, either!!!!

Simple equation:

X increased CO2 = Y temperature increase.

Solve for X & Y...Show your work.

Already told you, save your strawmen for someone who cares. You've already proven you don't get the logic, so why should I waste anymore of my time? For the lurkers, I guess. Maybe they'll get what you obviously don't or refuse to, because it doesn't fit your bias.

 

[Texanmike]

Of course there are blatant manufactured consensus, evidence, misquotes, and out right lies. Google "Globial Warming" and you'll find 78,400,000 pages of hits. There are tens of thousands of web sites devoted to global warming support or denial with millions or articles by scientists, economist, politicians, political hacks, and conspiracy theorists.

The planet is warming and the evidence that man is responsible is rising. No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

Appeal to authority isn't science either, pal.

Authority isn't good enough for you. Logic isn't good enough for you. What do you really bring to the table, but overwhelming bias?!?!

I'm hearing an emotional plea for someone to embrace your ideology. "What must i do to convince you?".

Either prove your authority on the subject or show us the work so we can follow along.

Mike

 

[Oddball]

So how did you quantify that and make the logical deduction that your statement isn't "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? To me it just seems like you're parroting what you've heard elsewhere. Your logic is suspect and your facts are specious. I don't really see where you have a logical leg to stand on. All I'm getting from you are smart-ass rejoinders. That isn't science or logic, either!!!!

Simple equation:

X increased CO2 = Y temperature increase.

Solve for X & Y...Show your work.

Already told you, save your strawmen for someone who cares. You've already proven you don't get the logic, so why should I waste anymore of my time? For the lurkers, I guess. Maybe they'll get what you obviously don't or refuse to, because it doesn't fit your bias.

Not a strawman.

It's a very simple equation for you to quantify, in terms of hard numbers that anyone can work out for themselves, how much increased atmospheric CO2 will translate into a verifiable temperature increase.

If you can't do a basic math problem and show your work, who should believe that you have the first idea of what you're yammering about?

 

[flacaltenn]

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

That's not deductive reasoning...That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Wrong, that IS deductive reasoning. You'd only be correct, if there were no established link between CO2 and IR radiation! What part of my logical syllogism* do you think has a flaw? Statement #1 is true. Statement #2 is true. Statement #3 follows logically from 1 & 2. Where's the problem?!?!

*- A syllogism (Greek: &#963;&#965;&#955;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#953;&#963;&#956;&#972;&#962; &#8211; syllogismos &#8211; "conclusion," "inference") or logical appeal is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition.
Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's kinda funny that you mention infra-red absorption properties of CO2 -- because if you overlay THOSE properties with those of water vapor -- you get only 2 narrow frequencies where the minute amounts of CO2 have ANY chance to make a dramatic increase in overall heat absorption of the dominant water vapor. And part of the dissent that you seek to suppress makes a very reasonable argument that heating WON'T be linear with increasing CO2.. That it will become "saturated" in it's effect at certain high concentrations and therefore decrease in significance as a GreenHouse gas..

In fact --- there's one study that took the sun completely out of the equation by studyijng nighttime desert temperatures and controlling for water vapor. It found NO evidence over 30 years that CO2 increases correlated with nightime heat retention..

But your LOGIC would be impeccable and unimpeachable...

I hope by now the OP realizes that politics SHOULD be absolutely irrevelent to these debates.

 

[konradv]

Simple equation:

X increased CO2 = Y temperature increase.

Solve for X & Y...Show your work.

Already told you, save your strawmen for someone who cares. You've already proven you don't get the logic, so why should I waste anymore of my time? For the lurkers, I guess. Maybe they'll get what you obviously don't or refuse to, because it doesn't fit your bias.

Not a strawman.

It's a very simple equation for you to quantify, in terms of hard numbers that anyone can work out for themselves, how much increased atmospheric CO2 will translate into a verifiable temperature increase.

If you can't do a basic math problem and show your work, who should believe that you have the first idea of what you're yammering about?

Denying it doesn't make it any less so. What you're suggesting isn't a benchtop experiment, hence it's a "strawman". As the skeptics are so fond of saying, there are many factors, so the simple equation you posit isn't as straight forward as you make it out to be. If I even attenmpted to answer it, you'd undoubtedly do an about-face and bring up the other factors, which you're conveniently leaving out now. That's not logical argumentation, that's intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Oddball]

Try: "I can't do the problem and show my work".

Because if you could, you would have done so by now.

 

[konradv]

Try: "I can't do the problem and show my work".

Because if you could, you would have done so by now.

Strawman

 

[Oddball]

Nope...Proof that you cannot quantify your claim.

Further, proof that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[RDD_1210]

Try: "I can't do the problem and show my work".

Because if you could, you would have done so by now.

Strawman

Konrad, don't feel bad. Oddball got busted up in my thread earlier today when he repeatedly showed us he lacks basic reading comprehension skills. When he was shown to be wrong, he moved the goal posts, used insults and bailed out on the thread completely. He's a one trick pony. He isn't worth your time.