Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
209
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

209 Views
Message 81 of 94

Very hard to believe there are still people out there denying science in favor of these opinion pieces. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
209
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

202 Views
Message 82 of 94

@Panjandrum wrote:

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


That does not imply that 97% believe that man made global warming is enough to worry about.

Concensus.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
202
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
201
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

201 Views
Message 83 of 94

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
201
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

202 Views
Message 84 of 94

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
202
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
223
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

223 Views
Message 85 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

So you believe a conference by Freedom Force International over actual scientists?  What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

As far as their "experts":

 

Tim Ball, a "scientist" who has fudged his own credentials and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (follow the money).  This "man of science" also believes in Creationism.

 

Alex Newman, a journalist.

 

Jim Lee, other than running his own website, appears to have no credentials at all.

 

Lord Monckton is a journalist not a scientist.

 

Willie Soon is funded by the Oil and Coal industries and has claimed the warming is due to solar variation, a very easy claim to refute.

 

Your 4 hour series is little more than 4 hours of lies and propaganda.

 

 


Ad hominem.  You cannot logically refute anything that they say, such as this:

 

GlobalWarmingFraud.png

 

 


It is not an ad hominem, since you didn't post any points, just a series of hour lectures by people who are not subject matter experts. 

 

The study (Cook et al) reviewed peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011 and those are the numbers that they found.  The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind.  In terms of some warming, you could think that man is causing as much as 99% of it, but if you think there is some natural causation as well, then you are placed in this category.  You are implying there is a large disagreement about anthropogenic warming, when there is not.  

 

If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to.


"The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind."

 

The old liberal mind reader trick strikes again!.  It clearly says, "Expressed no opinion."  You need to provide evidence of what the opinions of those who didn't express one are.

 

"If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to."

 

Ditto you.


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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
223
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
227
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

227 Views
Message 86 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

So you believe a conference by Freedom Force International over actual scientists?  What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

As far as their "experts":

 

Tim Ball, a "scientist" who has fudged his own credentials and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (follow the money).  This "man of science" also believes in Creationism.

 

Alex Newman, a journalist.

 

Jim Lee, other than running his own website, appears to have no credentials at all.

 

Lord Monckton is a journalist not a scientist.

 

Willie Soon is funded by the Oil and Coal industries and has claimed the warming is due to solar variation, a very easy claim to refute.

 

Your 4 hour series is little more than 4 hours of lies and propaganda.

 

 


Ad hominem.  You cannot logically refute anything that they say, such as this:

 

GlobalWarmingFraud.png

 

 


It is not an ad hominem, since you didn't post any points, just a series of hour lectures by people who are not subject matter experts. 

 

The study (Cook et al) reviewed peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011 and those are the numbers that they found.  The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind.  In terms of some warming, you could think that man is causing as much as 99% of it, but if you think there is some natural causation as well, then you are placed in this category.  You are implying there is a large disagreement about anthropogenic warming, when there is not.  

 

If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to.


"The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind."

 

The old liberal mind reader trick strikes again!.  It clearly says, "Expressed no opinion."  You need to provide evidence of what the opinions of those who didn't express one are.

 

"If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to."

 

Ditto you.


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.  

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
227
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
230
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

230 Views
Message 87 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

So you believe a conference by Freedom Force International over actual scientists?  What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

As far as their "experts":

 

Tim Ball, a "scientist" who has fudged his own credentials and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (follow the money).  This "man of science" also believes in Creationism.

 

Alex Newman, a journalist.

 

Jim Lee, other than running his own website, appears to have no credentials at all.

 

Lord Monckton is a journalist not a scientist.

 

Willie Soon is funded by the Oil and Coal industries and has claimed the warming is due to solar variation, a very easy claim to refute.

 

Your 4 hour series is little more than 4 hours of lies and propaganda.

 

 


Ad hominem.  You cannot logically refute anything that they say, such as this:

 

GlobalWarmingFraud.png

 

 


It is not an ad hominem, since you didn't post any points, just a series of hour lectures by people who are not subject matter experts. 

 

The study (Cook et al) reviewed peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011 and those are the numbers that they found.  The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind.  In terms of some warming, you could think that man is causing as much as 99% of it, but if you think there is some natural causation as well, then you are placed in this category.  You are implying there is a large disagreement about anthropogenic warming, when there is not.  

 

If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to.


"The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind."

 

The old liberal mind reader trick strikes again!.  It clearly says, "Expressed no opinion."  You need to provide evidence of what the opinions of those who didn't express one are.

 

"If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to."

 

Ditto you.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
230
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
241
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

241 Views
Message 88 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

So you believe a conference by Freedom Force International over actual scientists?  What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

As far as their "experts":

 

Tim Ball, a "scientist" who has fudged his own credentials and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (follow the money).  This "man of science" also believes in Creationism.

 

Alex Newman, a journalist.

 

Jim Lee, other than running his own website, appears to have no credentials at all.

 

Lord Monckton is a journalist not a scientist.

 

Willie Soon is funded by the Oil and Coal industries and has claimed the warming is due to solar variation, a very easy claim to refute.

 

Your 4 hour series is little more than 4 hours of lies and propaganda.

 

 


Ad hominem.  You cannot logically refute anything that they say, such as this:

 

GlobalWarmingFraud.png

 

 


It is not an ad hominem, since you didn't post any points, just a series of hour lectures by people who are not subject matter experts. 

 

The study (Cook et al) reviewed peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011 and those are the numbers that they found.  The first logical fallacy is that they are assuming the 7930 extracts that had "no opinion" means that they disagree with anthropogenic global warming, when it means nothing of the kind.  In terms of some warming, you could think that man is causing as much as 99% of it, but if you think there is some natural causation as well, then you are placed in this category.  You are implying there is a large disagreement about anthropogenic warming, when there is not.  

 

If you would like to actually discuss any points out of their 4 hour diatribe, pick specific ones and I would be happy to.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
241
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
243
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

243 Views
Message 89 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

So you believe a conference by Freedom Force International over actual scientists?  What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

As far as their "experts":

 

Tim Ball, a "scientist" who has fudged his own credentials and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (follow the money).  This "man of science" also believes in Creationism.

 

Alex Newman, a journalist.

 

Jim Lee, other than running his own website, appears to have no credentials at all.

 

Lord Monckton is a journalist not a scientist.

 

Willie Soon is funded by the Oil and Coal industries and has claimed the warming is due to solar variation, a very easy claim to refute.

 

Your 4 hour series is little more than 4 hours of lies and propaganda.

 

 


Your ad hominem attack is irrelevant because you failed to logically refute anything that was said.  In particular, I want to see a rebuttal to this: 

 

GlobalWarmingFraud.png

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
243
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
231
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

231 Views
Message 90 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

So you believe a conference by Freedom Force International over actual scientists?  What other conspiracies do you believe in?

 

As far as their "experts":

 

Tim Ball, a "scientist" who has fudged his own credentials and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (follow the money).  This "man of science" also believes in Creationism.

 

Alex Newman, a journalist.

 

Jim Lee, other than running his own website, appears to have no credentials at all.

 

Lord Monckton is a journalist not a scientist.

 

Willie Soon is funded by the Oil and Coal industries and has claimed the warming is due to solar variation, a very easy claim to refute.

 

Your 4 hour series is little more than 4 hours of lies and propaganda.

 

 


Ad hominem.  You cannot logically refute anything that they say, such as this:

 

GlobalWarmingFraud.png

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
231
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors