Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

palerider said:
I don't see you posting any evidence to the contrary. Your constant tongue in cheek claim of "a big conspiracy" is no more and no less than an appeal to ridicule. A common logical fallacy among those who are unable to actually substantiate their claims.

From the Nizkor Project:

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).

Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.
Click to expand...

The only problem with yuour argument is that you actually DO think it is a big conspiracy, dude. It's written all over your responses. And if you were the only one doing it, I'd give you the benefit of a doubt. But the "evil marxist liberals use global warming to take over the world" bit gets very old after a while. So like I said, grow up.
 
Werbung:
palerider said:
That is precisely what climate scientists are claiming that they can do. They treat their simulaitons as if they were real world evidence and the press reports the results of those simulaitons as if they were real, and people like you come to places like this arguing the results of simulations in the belief that you are arguing observed evidence.

Most of the "facts" you have presented have been the result of piss poor simulations, not hard observed fact.
Click to expand...

No, what the are doing is making scientific predictions that are testable. Weather men also make predictions. And yet I don't see anyone claiming that they are "evil Marxists trying to take over the world". Do you?

As for simulations, they are very useful and help scientists work out how various parameters interact, and also are helpful in making predictions that are also testable. Are they perfect? No, and no one is saying that they are. As an alleged biochemist, if you have a problem with simulations or modeling, I dare say you've entered the wrong field.

And Palerrider, anyone can review what I've posted and see that the bulk of what I've posted are actual direct measurements. So your accusation that most of what I've posted is based on simulations is a lie. Is this how you conduct science where you work (assuming that you actually are a scientist)?
 
"And in a worldwide oubreak of volcanic activity, all of them were associated with flood bassalts? Name the locations please."

What worldwide outbreak of volcanic eruptions, where? All the flood basalts in geologic history have been related to mantle plumes and have been regional eruptions only, but several have had dire global consequences. The Permian eruptions in Siberia in particular caused the Permian-triassic extinction event because it released so much CO2 over the course of about 2 million years in a long sequence (documented both in Siberia and in sediments in Greenland) that it caused a global warming event that raised global temperatures by 10 degrees C. And I don't think even you can ignore the severe consequences of such a huge increase in global temperatures. Certainly not with a fossil record that shows thqat 80% of all species were wiped out in that event.

But no doubt Gipper will think it was a Marxist conspiracy.
 
"Never been there. I guess you are an old hand as I am repeatedly posting study after study and hard observed evidence that rebutts your belief and you just continue on your merry way completely unable to substantiate your claims with any hard observed evidence."

Posting "evidence" from conservative climate change skeptics blogs, most of whom are written not by scientists but by political pundants, is not evidence any scientist I know will accept as being credible. For instance, the infamous wattsup blog site is owned and edited by a guy who has a bachelor's degree in meteorology and is a former weatherman with no formal scientific peer reviewed publication to his credit. And what's even worse, he's a creationist. Sorry dude, that just doesn't get it.
 
"So its a thousand years except for the bulk of the cycle which is orders of magnitude longer."

Except that the rock cycle takes CO2 out of the system, and does it over a period of millions of years, while it adds a miniscule amount, again, over a period of millions of years. The only way the rock cycle can have any effect such as what we are seeing in such a short period of time is when we disrupt it by digging it up or extracting that carbon and burn it in our cars and power plants. And that, we most certainly are doing.
 
"Yeah, and I guess Katrina was a minor storm."

That killed over a thousand people. Why? Because of inadequate/incompetent disaster preparation. Imagine how many will die as a result of the insistence of people like you that there be NO preparation for the consequences of global warming simply because you who refuse to face the facts. Look, the vast majority of the world's scientists are sounding the alarm and for good reason. The bulk of the world's government are in agreement on this issue and want action sooner rather than later. The only thing standing in the way of much needed action are a few conservative deniers in a handful of nations, and their corporate sponsors who are largely responsible for the mess in the first place, and refuse to change the way they do things.

As to your claim that it is fact that global warming is likely substantially caused by humans, I call BS. Lets see the hard observed evidence. Lets see the facts that prove the claim. Lets see the evidence that produces the hard link between our activities and the climate.

It is pointless to make claims that we both know you can not substantiate with any real evidence.
 
"I asked you to list 1 hard observed proof. You couldn't so you post a 6 minute video of dickwad who also can't name one hard observed proof. Thanks."

Translation: I didn't watch it because I don't like Carl Sagan and his "billions and billion" even though it provided all the proof anyone needs to refute an assinine claim such as the watchmake analogy.

The proof is in natural selection, which is nature's way of doing what we humans have been doing in breeding characteristics that we want in animals for thousands of years. THAT is the proof. Do you deny that no nowhere in the wild will you find a horse such a a thoroguhbred? Or a Jersey cow? That's because we bred them to be what they are. Nature does the exact same thing. It just takes longer. The only reason why you refuse to accept that is because:

1) You think that it somehow violates your religious beliefs, and
2) You know nothing about it, because you aren't the biochemist you claim to be.

I would say that no one can be this scientifically illiterate and still claim to be a scientist, but then we have Behe. Go figure. It's more a statement of the poor state of our education system that awards degrees to such incompetence than anything else.
 
"I asked you to prove that the increase was unprecedented. As I expected, you can't prove it so instead, you attempt to alter what I said and attack your strawman."

Can you show trhat it isn't unprecendented? Where in the geologic record do you see a similar rapid increase of such high proportions? Anywhere at all? The fact is that based on what we know, it is unprecendented. Now, that may change as new data is found that refutes it, and if that happens, I can accept that. But until someone comes up with a credible dataset that refutes it, you are going to have to accept it as well. That's how science works, Palerider. Or were you asleep when that lecture was given?
 
Gipper said:
Not a chance THC.

You just wrote...."all conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservative by debating global climate change..."

Do you have any clue how absurd that statement is???? - guess not -:rolleyes:

You must be hitting the bong big time today or could it be you are just a liberal partisan???

See cons - libs like THC do not want ANY debate. We must accept their insane lies as fact.
Click to expand...

How absurd is it? :)

How many conservatives do you know who DON'T reject at least three scientific theories before afternoon tea? :)
 
Gipper said:
Not a chance THC.

You just wrote...."all conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservative by debating global climate change..."

Do you have any clue how absurd that statement is???? - guess not -:rolleyes:

You must be hitting the bong big time today or could it be you are just a liberal partisan???

See cons - libs like THC do not want ANY debate. We must accept their insane lies as fact.
Click to expand...

Are you Glenn Beck in drag? i know he likes to quote part of what someone says, then go off on that part.

Try reading the rest of my post, as follows:

Palerider and Gipper support my hypothesis that conservatives must reject at least three.....
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your supporting my hypothesis, it is still just an educated guess at this point. Perhaps you'd like to follow my link to the poll.
 
PLC1 said:
Palerider and Gipper support my hypothesis that conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservatives
Click to expand...

I've pointed this out at least three times now, you're hypothesis is wrong and it has yet to be supported by anyone...

If you wanted to be accurate you could say:

"Conservatives are often skeptical of at least three scientific theories."

That hypothesis could be supported by the statements made by Pale and Gipper.

Not one single Conservative has declared that a Conservative "must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservative".

Claiming that anyone has supported your hypothesis is false. Repeatedly claiming that your hypothesis has been supported is pathological.
 
PLC1 said:
While it is interesting to read Palerider and Gipper support my hypothesis that conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservatives by debating global climate change, I'd like to get this thread back on track.
Click to expand...

Are you really that intellectually challenged? By the way, which 3 do you claim that I reject? And do you suppose that I couldn't find 3 theories that you reject as well?
 
palerider said:
Are you really that intellectually challenged? By the way, which 3 do you claim that I reject? And do you suppose that I couldn't find 3 theories that you reject as well?
Click to expand...
He's not just claiming that you do reject them but you must reject them in order to consider yourself a Conservative.
 
Werbung:

Similar threads

PLC1
  • Poll Poll
Must conservatives reject the theory of evolution?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
PLC1
PLC1
GenSeneca
Deconstructing the Liberal Funny Bone
Replies
7
Views
2K
Lagboltz
Lagboltz
I
Malfunctioning Robot
Replies
9
Views
2K
Bunz
Bunz
S
Buddhism & Uniformity
Replies
7
Views
2K
SusanConstant
S
Back
Top