Protect your digital identity with AARP’s fraud resource center. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
291
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

291 Views
Message 61 of 94

The is no need to refute fallacy.  The Radical far right posts fallacy and nonsense created by non-scientists and expects others to wast their time in refuting it.

 

 Their fantasies continue.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
291
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
292
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

292 Views
Message 62 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Ditto you.

 

The people in the videos anticipated and refuted everything you said before you said it.


And managed to do so without a single scientific study or source. I am very impressed with that. 


Wrong.


Do you understand the difference between real science and pseudo-science?  The biggest experts you posted are Ball and Soon.  Ball has been RETIRED since 1996, he is not actively researching anything.  Soon's premise has been repeatedly refuted by other scientists who point that we can measure what Soon is talking about, and the facts do not back-up his claims.  Of course, since you can't even discuss something as simple as a carbon cycle, the fact that you believe so many pseudo-science claims comes as no surprise.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
292
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

298 Views
Message 63 of 94

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Ditto you.

 

The people in the videos anticipated and refuted everything you said before you said it.


And managed to do so without a single scientific study or source. I am very impressed with that. 


Wrong.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
298
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
318
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

318 Views
Message 64 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

Ditto you.

 

The people in the videos anticipated and refuted everything you said before you said it.


And managed to do so without a single scientific study or source. I am very impressed with that. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
318
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
324
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

324 Views
Message 65 of 94

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@sp362 wrote:
One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

All the different studies, climate change, pollution, physics, etc. and they all point to the same conclusions backed up by real world outcomes. 

 

Heck of a conspiracy theory. Well, at least enough to get 4 hours of video on Youtube. 


Wrong.


"Wrong"?  This is your expansive response to my comments?   No sources, no elaboration, no references to scientific studies which refute my point?  No unicorns (as long as we are talking mythical things)?

 

Pretty much defines the position and argument of the deniers doesn't it? 

 

How is that "The earth is flat" thing going for you? 

 

 


Ditto you.

 

The people in the videos anticipated and refuted everything you said before you said it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
324
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
328
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

328 Views
Message 66 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@sp362 wrote:
One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

All the different studies, climate change, pollution, physics, etc. and they all point to the same conclusions backed up by real world outcomes. 

 

Heck of a conspiracy theory. Well, at least enough to get 4 hours of video on Youtube. 


Wrong.


"Wrong"?  This is your expansive response to my comments?   No sources, no elaboration, no references to scientific studies which refute my point?  No unicorns (as long as we are talking mythical things)?

 

Pretty much defines the position and argument of the deniers doesn't it? 

 

How is that "The earth is flat" thing going for you? 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
328
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
329
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

329 Views
Message 67 of 94

Inconvenient Lie Day

 

People believe what they choose to believe.

 

Some people think NASA faked the moon landing, therefore climate science is a hoax.

 

I choose to believe the 97 percent  world wide consensus of climate scientist.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

 

Abstract
 

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
329
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
328
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

328 Views
Message 68 of 94

@Richva wrote:

@sp362 wrote:
One of the personality traits of conspiracy theorists is that they want to believe in a conspiracy theory so they make themselves feel smarter and more important than they actually are.  Not saying that applies to aruzinsky, just pointing out the trait.

All the different studies, climate change, pollution, physics, etc. and they all point to the same conclusions backed up by real world outcomes. 

 

Heck of a conspiracy theory. Well, at least enough to get 4 hours of video on Youtube. 


Wrong.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
328
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
322
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

322 Views
Message 69 of 94

@Panjandrum wrote:

aruzinsky:   NASA and others have been committing fraud by changing the history of temperature data, i.e., lying.

 

 

Amazing how some Average Joe on AARP managed to singlehandedly bust NASA for lying. Odd how no one else has caught on to them though. Smiley Happy

 


Ad hominem.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
322
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
313
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

313 Views
Message 70 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Since it is your premise and you are trying to read something into "Expressed no opinion" that is not there, it is UP TO YOU to provide the proof.  Again, where is the figure for the number that say it is ALL NATURAL?  I believe that would 0.00%  It is not an old liberal mind trick (I am a Conservative), but trying to state that something implies something it does not could be interpreted as an uneducated mind trick.  Illogical logic is the same thing as alternative facts. If the best you can do is the "Expressed no opinion" must mean they disbelieve it, you are very thin ice (no pun intended). 

Since I don't want to be accused by you of simply cherry picking facts to refute out of 4 hours of lecture (I am sure there are some points that are actually valid), you can choose.  


Eliminating those who expressed no opinion from the calculation leads to 1% of those expressing an opinion stating that we caused most global warming.  If you think I am going to quibble about 1% versus 0.3%, you are out of your mind.  Nobody says it's all natural, just that man made global warming is not enough to worry about.


You do realize that the only difference between some, most and all would the speed of change? 

Also, since some and most are adverbs it is up to each individuals interpretation of their meaning on where they classify their position on the issue.  Since they looked at papers as early as 1991 and real scientists are very conservative and do not want to state what may not be happening, the very fact that there are that many saying man is contributing is eye opening.  Again, the number who say man is not the cause is 0.00%  The natural carbon cycle had kept at the carbon level at 280 PPM for 10,000 years until the Industrial Age.  Why don't you educate us how the cycle has suddenly changed and has risen at an unprecedented rate.


Your first sentence makes no sense and it is too difficult to decipher the rest. 


While I left out the word "be", I think the average person could understand what I meant.  Whenever you cannot or don't want to respond to something, you play a pseudo intellectual.  As I have said before, you need to quit playing an intellectual because it is obvious to most on here that you are not.  I am sorry if you don't understand something as basic as a carbon cycle.  I think anybody with a high school education could easily decipher what I wrote.


To "be" or not to "be," that is the question.  Despite your great verbosity, I still don't know what you are talking about. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
313
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors