From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
155
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

155 Views
Message 51 of 94

@ChasKy53 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.


Oh, because you say so? 

Because you are not right because you say so. There are numerous counterexamples to your "All ..." and only one counterexample is needed.  

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
155
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
163
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

163 Views
Message 52 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@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.


"The people" you refer to are not top climate scientists. Of course that means nothing to you, right?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
163
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
164
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

164 Views
Message 53 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.


Oh, because you say so?

 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
164
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
162
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

162 Views
Message 54 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@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.


As is your own reply.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
162
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
155
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

155 Views
Message 55 of 94

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The ad hominem logical fallacy ONLY applies when you are attacking the CHARACTER of your opponent or some other unrelated issue, such as the fact they vote for Progressives.

 

When you attack the CREDENTIALS of the opponent, you are on solid logical ground, just as you would debunking anti-vaccer nonsense by pointing out the opponent has no educational or job experience in the field of medicine. All opinions are NOT equal - if you think otherwise, dump your family doctor and have the local tree surgeon provide for you children's medical care - you'll save a bundle.

 

The totally bogus study with the bright red flag CLAIMS 66% of the 11,944 papers reviewed "provided no opinion", but a review of Tol's skreed shows he categorized all papers that stated global warming was caused by human activity as "no opinion". Here's and extract from one article Tol classified as "no oinion"

 

"Humans are engaged in an uncontrolled experiment in planetary heating. Each decade, the concentration of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing by about 4%. All signs point toward unprecedented rates of warming and climate change." (Soule 1992)

In the survey proving 97% agreement on man being the cause of global warming, this paper was classifie as an explicit endorsement of human-caused global warming.  According to his categorization, Tol would have to classify it as 'no opinion'.  You be the judge as to who's misclassifying abstracts.

 

Tol's utter nonsense continues in the second entry on his scarychart - 32.6% agree that we cause SOME warming as being in favor of the denier stance. Scientists gave up making statements about anything happening ALL the time 200 years ago when they stopped talking about LAWS of nature and began more accuratily referring to THEORIES. Hence we still talk about Newton's LAW of Gravity but call Einstein's General Relativity a THEORY, even tho the THEORY pokes holes in the LAW. So the first two entries in his tripe are in fact an AFFIRMATION of Man-caused climate change, putting the total of those in support to 98%.

 

People who do not understand how scientific research is conducted or reported should refrane from using it to bolster bad ideas - it merely calls attention to a lack of "rigor" in their arguments.


Wrong. Ad hominem also applies to attacking an argument based on the credentials of the opponent.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

 

"You have already exceeded your fair quota of errors." is an ad hominem attack on your other arguments.  But, just the same, I don't deserve to address any more of your prolific errors therefore I won't. 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
155
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
156
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

156 Views
Message 56 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@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. 


Funny, but everyone else does. Does that make you 'elite' and 'intellectual'?

 

No "intellectual" would use the sources you posted.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
156
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
158
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

158 Views
Message 57 of 94

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@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.


Both Willie Soon and Timethy Ball are more qualified that these people:

ClimateProtestor1.jpg

ClimateProtestor2.jpg

ClimateProtestor3.jpg

ClimateProtestor4.jpg

 

And especially this lying quack:

 

 

 

 

 

 


So you want to support your position by posting pictures of people who are not doing climate research (just like 4 of the 5 you posted, with the last one being financed by coal and oil) instead of discussing the actual research. It just goes to show that you don't have a leg to stand on.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
158
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
157
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

157 Views
Message 58 of 94

@sp362 wrote:

@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.


Both Willie Soon and Timethy Ball are more qualified that these people:

ClimateProtestor1.jpg

ClimateProtestor2.jpg

ClimateProtestor3.jpg

ClimateProtestor4.jpg

 

And especially this lying quack:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
157
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
155
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

155 Views
Message 59 of 94

The ad hominem logical fallacy ONLY applies when you are attacking the CHARACTER of your opponent or some other unrelated issue, such as the fact they vote for Progressives.

 

When you attack the CREDENTIALS of the opponent, you are on solid logical ground, just as you would debunking anti-vaccer nonsense by pointing out the opponent has no educational or job experience in the field of medicine. All opinions are NOT equal - if you think otherwise, dump your family doctor and have the local tree surgeon provide for you children's medical care - you'll save a bundle.

 

The totally bogus study with the bright red flag CLAIMS 66% of the 11,944 papers reviewed "provided no opinion", but a review of Tol's skreed shows he categorized all papers that stated global warming was caused by human activity as "no opinion". Here's and extract from one article Tol classified as "no oinion"

 

"Humans are engaged in an uncontrolled experiment in planetary heating. Each decade, the concentration of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing by about 4%. All signs point toward unprecedented rates of warming and climate change." (Soule 1992)

In the survey proving 97% agreement on man being the cause of global warming, this paper was classifie as an explicit endorsement of human-caused global warming.  According to his categorization, Tol would have to classify it as 'no opinion'.  You be the judge as to who's misclassifying abstracts.

 

Tol's utter nonsense continues in the second entry on his scarychart - 32.6% agree that we cause SOME warming as being in favor of the denier stance. Scientists gave up making statements about anything happening ALL the time 200 years ago when they stopped talking about LAWS of nature and began more accuratily referring to THEORIES. Hence we still talk about Newton's LAW of Gravity but call Einstein's General Relativity a THEORY, even tho the THEORY pokes holes in the LAW. So the first two entries in his tripe are in fact an AFFIRMATION of Man-caused climate change, putting the total of those in support to 98%.

 

People who do not understand how scientific research is conducted or reported should refrane from using it to bolster bad ideas - it merely calls attention to a lack of "rigor" in their arguments.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
155
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
166
Views

Re: Inconvenient Lie Day

166 Views
Message 60 of 94

The GOPerLords hate the Inconvenient Truth first revealed by Al Gore because it interfers with their highly profitable rape of our environment.

 

They are terrified that when enough people believe this Truth, they will demand we take action to save Civilization for our grandkids even if it means the Uberrich will once again have to pay taxes.

 

So they are constantly assembling gaggles of useful idiots to give those needing conspiracy theories to explain a World that has changed too much so those CTers can elect Republicans who always chose money today over survival in two generations.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
166
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors