Page 61 of 70 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 694

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #601
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,796
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,502
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

    You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.
    I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!

  2. Top | #602
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,796
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,502
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

    You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.
    What's that do to the claimed 97% consensus ?

    This video uncovers the in-depth story behind the climate fraud.

    Further information is here.....................................

  3. Top | #603
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,796
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,502
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    I propose a new law of online debate, Bilby's Law, which states:

    The use of a video or cartoon in support of a scientific point is a clear indication that the person providing that medium has insufficient understanding of the topic to usefully participate in the debate.

    Seriously, I am increasingly convinced that the most direct measure of a person's intelligence online is to be found by study of the ratio of written arguments to video, meme, and cartoon postings. A video is an excellent way to make an argument (that could be expressed in a handful of sentences) take several minutes - perhaps even an hour or more - to convey. The information density of such media is incredibly low; While the depth of knowledge conveyed is almost always practically zero.

    Presenting video evidence in a debate is a strong indication that the person doing so has only the most superficial understanding, as any person with a deep grasp of a topic will invariably choose to convey their knowledge through text (with perhaps an occasional well designed graph) - if only because this is the only way to disseminate large volumes of information in a reasonable amount of time.

    Using a thirty minute YouTube clip to present a single concept to your audience is a massive waste of their time - and therefore a clear indication that your own knowledge extends almost nowhere beyond that single concept.
    Isn't this a forum for discussion?

  4. Top | #604
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,839
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,589
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

    You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.
    I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!
    You've consistently claimed that science is wrong about climate change.
    You've claimed that the peer-review system is dishonest.
    You've claimed that climate scientists are fraudsters.
    You've disparaged climate science as "alarmism".
    You've consistently claimed that climate change is a "cult".

    Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

  5. Top | #605
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,038
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,515
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    I propose a new law of online debate, Bilby's Law, which states:

    The use of a video or cartoon in support of a scientific point is a clear indication that the person providing that medium has insufficient understanding of the topic to usefully participate in the debate.

    Seriously, I am increasingly convinced that the most direct measure of a person's intelligence online is to be found by study of the ratio of written arguments to video, meme, and cartoon postings. A video is an excellent way to make an argument (that could be expressed in a handful of sentences) take several minutes - perhaps even an hour or more - to convey. The information density of such media is incredibly low; While the depth of knowledge conveyed is almost always practically zero.

    Presenting video evidence in a debate is a strong indication that the person doing so has only the most superficial understanding, as any person with a deep grasp of a topic will invariably choose to convey their knowledge through text (with perhaps an occasional well designed graph) - if only because this is the only way to disseminate large volumes of information in a reasonable amount of time.

    Using a thirty minute YouTube clip to present a single concept to your audience is a massive waste of their time - and therefore a clear indication that your own knowledge extends almost nowhere beyond that single concept.
    Isn't this a forum for discussion?
    Yes, it is.

    A YouTube video isn't a discussion; It's a one-way medium.

    You can yell at your TV, but you can't have a discussion with it.

  6. Top | #606
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,839
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,589
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Isn't this a forum for discussion?
    This is a forum for science discussion.

    So let's discuss your latest link:
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post754676

    Happer is not a climate science expert. He specialises in a different field of physics. This is not the first time you have presented us with a physicist and claimed he is a climate science expert.

    You don't seem to understand that physicists aren't automatically experts in every kind of physics. I'm sure you understand how specialisation works in other professions, like surgery. A cardiac surgeon is not an expert in neurosurgery, and vice versa. An atomic physicist (such as Happer) is not an expert in atmospheric physics.

    And since Happer is not an expert on climate science, his opinion does not matter.

    If you want to have a discussion about science, then at a bare minimum you need to understand how science works. Scientists come up with ideas, then they conduct experiments to test those ideas, and then they present their work to be scrutinised by their peers.

    Happer hasn't done the work. He claims the Earth's climate sensitivity is about 1°C, but he hasn't published any research showing how he has tested this claim.

    I've explained why I don't consider Happer to be an expert on climate science. Perhaps you can explain why you do consider Happer to be expert on climate science, or at least why you don;t consider my reasons convincing, or what makes my position cultish.

  7. Top | #607
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,615
    Rep Power
    14
    Sometimes I think Tucker Carlson is posting here.

  8. Top | #608
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,045
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,797
    Rep Power
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

    You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.
    I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!
    But you keep posting garbage links and never actually address the facts when we point out problems with what you are saying.

  9. Top | #609
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,900
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,113
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

    You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.
    I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!
    So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you points out are 97% of the climate science establishment.

    I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.

  10. Top | #610
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,796
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,502
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

    You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.
    I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!
    So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you points out are 97% of the climate science establishment.

    I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.
    Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...us-ian-tuttle/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •