Australian Politics Forum - Wasting energy on climate change sceptics

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #45 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:18pm

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

...
Do learn to read the information; ...

Oh, I could do that, but I've learned better than to chase denialists down every rabbit hole they point out.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

They are source documents, ...

The sources of isolated fragments of text, perhaps. Why do you never reveal the sources of you misrepresentations?

No matter how many fragments of opinion you find to comfort you, the consensus remains.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #46 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:22pm

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

I reject your denialist sources because you've never relied on one that's reputable

These links are hardly denialist blogs. ...

But the sources of your misrepresentations are, aren't they? You haven't the qualifications to understand most of what you post. Clearly, you post what you've been led to from some other source. Be honest, post your true source.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #47 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

...
No, climate scientists went from being ordinary drone researchers 'that guy in the lab down hall' sort of thing, to basic rock stars of the science world that everyone wants to talk to, and that heads of government listen, to pretty much overnight. Suddenly they are getting offered more money in one grant than they'd received in decades, plus all expenses paid invitations to dinners, symposiums and conferences in exotic places all around the world. Of COURSE that's going to have an effect on them, and if they didn't want it to continue, they'd need to locked in a rubber room for their own safety..

Can you substantiate any of that rant?

As I said, I'll stick with the vast majority of the best qualified, at least until an organisation of reputable scientists disagrees with them.

Not a rant, just a synopsis of the behaviour of people in general and in research science in particular.

And yes I probably can substantiate it, but why bother, you'll just deny, denigrate or ignore any articles/websites or evidence I use as you always do when challenged.

If you could, you would.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right.

Does it mean they're wrong? Are "right" and "wrong" the only possibilities? When you say "right" or "wrong", what exactly do you mean? What are the probabilities?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Scientific history is chock full of examples of the "vast majority" turning out to be completely wrong.
Pythagoras, Galileo, Darwin etc.

Are you confusing science with religion?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #48 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:32pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

...
THAT GRAPH must be getting to you - the truth has a habit of doing that doesn't it Gizmo.

Not as much as it seems to get to you....I know it's incorrect ...

Can you substantiate that belief or is it just your faith?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #49 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:40pm

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

But the sources of your misrepresentations are, aren't they? You haven't the qualifications to understand most of what you post. Clearly, you post what you've been led to from some other source. Be honest, post your true source.

The source is the link. My search to find the link is immaterial.

You don't follow any link, but dismiss them out of hand. Some would say that's the stance of a bigot. Unwilling to read or perhaps learn. The posts haven't been edited in any way, so it is what it is.

Of course you could always read, disagree, and post a relevant comment.

Back to top

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics Reply #50 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:00pm lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:40pm: .... My search to find the link is immaterial. ... On that, we disagree. Your evasiveness is revealing enough. I'm not qualified to give authoritative commentary. I'll leave that to muso.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21599 Gender:	Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics Reply #51 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:03pm # wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:00pm: I'm not qualified No comment.
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #52 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:12pm

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

...
THAT GRAPH must be getting to you - the truth has a habit of doing that doesn't it Gizmo.

Not as much as it seems to get to you....I know it's incorrect ...

Can you substantiate that belief or is it just your faith?

Sure I can. I don't see it that way. So that disproves Cook's opinion. Simply wasn't it.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #53 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:16pm

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

...
No, climate scientists went from being ordinary drone researchers 'that guy in the lab down hall' sort of thing, to basic rock stars of the science world that everyone wants to talk to, and that heads of government listen, to pretty much overnight. Suddenly they are getting offered more money in one grant than they'd received in decades, plus all expenses paid invitations to dinners, symposiums and conferences in exotic places all around the world. Of COURSE that's going to have an effect on them, and if they didn't want it to continue, they'd need to locked in a rubber room for their own safety..

Can you substantiate any of that rant?

As I said, I'll stick with the vast majority of the best qualified, at least until an organisation of reputable scientists disagrees with them.

Not a rant, just a synopsis of the behaviour of people in general and in research science in particular.

And yes I probably can substantiate it, but why bother, you'll just deny, denigrate or ignore any articles/websites or evidence I use as you always do when challenged.

If you could, you would.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right.

Does it mean they're wrong? Are "right" and "wrong" the only possibilities? When you say "right" or "wrong", what exactly do you mean? What are the probabilities?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Scientific history is chock full of examples of the "vast majority" turning out to be completely wrong.
Pythagoras, Galileo, Darwin etc.

Are you confusing science with religion?

No, I'm not. Although, in some cases the religious interpretation was the thinking of the 'vast majority of the best qualified' until a rebellious thinker disproved it and ( in some cases) created a new scientific discipline.

And I can, I won't because arguing with close-minded true-believers is pointless (besides, you already know it, which is why you are in such a snit).

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics Reply #54 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:18pm lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:03pm: # wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:00pm: I'm not qualified No comment. The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he does not know. - Confucius I've learned the pitfalls of commenting outside my field. Evidently, you have not.
Back to top	IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #55 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:25pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

...
No, climate scientists went from being ordinary drone researchers 'that guy in the lab down hall' sort of thing, to basic rock stars of the science world that everyone wants to talk to, and that heads of government listen, to pretty much overnight. Suddenly they are getting offered more money in one grant than they'd received in decades, plus all expenses paid invitations to dinners, symposiums and conferences in exotic places all around the world. Of COURSE that's going to have an effect on them, and if they didn't want it to continue, they'd need to locked in a rubber room for their own safety..

Can you substantiate any of that rant?

As I said, I'll stick with the vast majority of the best qualified, at least until an organisation of reputable scientists disagrees with them.

Not a rant, just a synopsis of the behaviour of people in general and in research science in particular.

And yes I probably can substantiate it, but why bother, you'll just deny, denigrate or ignore any articles/websites or evidence I use as you always do when challenged.

If you could, you would.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right.

Does it mean they're wrong? Are "right" and "wrong" the only possibilities? When you say "right" or "wrong", what exactly do you mean? What are the probabilities?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Scientific history is chock full of examples of the "vast majority" turning out to be completely wrong.
Pythagoras, Galileo, Darwin etc.

Are you confusing science with religion?

No, I'm not. Although, in some cases the religious interpretation was the thinking of the 'vast majority of the best qualified' until a rebellious thinker disproved it and ( in some cases) created a new scientific discipline.

And I can, I won't because arguing with close-minded true-believers is pointless (besides, you already know it, which is why you are in such a snit).

Didn't Pythagoras actually found a religious movement? Weren't Galileo and Darwin arguing against religious establishments?

Care to answer the questions: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right.

Does it mean they're wrong? Are "right" and "wrong" the only possibilities? When you say "right" or "wrong", what exactly do you mean? What are the probabilities?

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #56 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:25pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

# wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

...
No, climate scientists went from being ordinary drone researchers 'that guy in the lab down hall' sort of thing, to basic rock stars of the science world that everyone wants to talk to, and that heads of government listen, to pretty much overnight. Suddenly they are getting offered more money in one grant than they'd received in decades, plus all expenses paid invitations to dinners, symposiums and conferences in exotic places all around the world. Of COURSE that's going to have an effect on them, and if they didn't want it to continue, they'd need to locked in a rubber room for their own safety..

Can you substantiate any of that rant?

As I said, I'll stick with the vast majority of the best qualified, at least until an organisation of reputable scientists disagrees with them.

Not a rant, just a synopsis of the behaviour of people in general and in research science in particular.

And yes I probably can substantiate it, but why bother, you'll just deny, denigrate or ignore any articles/websites or evidence I use as you always do when challenged.

If you could, you would.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right.

Does it mean they're wrong? Are "right" and "wrong" the only possibilities? When you say "right" or "wrong", what exactly do you mean? What are the probabilities?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Scientific history is chock full of examples of the "vast majority" turning out to be completely wrong.
Pythagoras, Galileo, Darwin etc.

Are you confusing science with religion?

No, I'm not. Although, in some cases the religious interpretation was the thinking of the 'vast majority of the best qualified' until a rebellious thinker disproved it and ( in some cases) created a new scientific discipline.

And I can, I won't because arguing with close-minded true-believers is pointless (besides, you already know it, which is why you are in such a snit).

Didn't Pythagoras actually found a religious movement? Weren't Galileo and Darwin arguing against religious establishments?

Care to answer the questions: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

And remember, just because the "vast majority of the best qualified" say something, doesn't mean they are right.

Does it mean they're wrong? Are "right" and "wrong" the only possibilities? When you say "right" or "wrong", what exactly do you mean? What are the probabilities?

Yes Galileo and Darwin were arguing against the religious 'vast majority' opinion, and I was referring to Pythagoras' discovery or announcement that the Earth was not a flat disk floating on the ocean, which was the consensus opinion up to that time.

As for your question about right or wrong. No right/wrong are not the only two options. They 'could be' almost right, or half right or have it totally backwards. It's entirely conceivable that there is some as yet undiscovered, or overlook process at work. And please, don't immediately respond with a 'no, they know everything' argument...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #57 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:37pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

... Galileo and Darwin were arguing against the religious 'vast majority' opinion, ...

It seems you can't differentiate between religion and scientific consensus. No wonder you're so confused.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

... and I was referring to Pythagoras' discovery or announcement that the Earth was not a flat disk floating on the ocean, which was the consensus opinion up to that time.

Didn't Pythagoras teach that the earth is spherical, probably in his religious movement? Is there any indication that the idea was his? Was he more religious leader than scientist?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

As for your question about right or wrong. No right/wrong are not the only two options. They 'could be' almost right, or half right or have it totally backwards. It's entirely conceivable that there is some as yet undiscovered, or overlook process at work. And please, don't immediately respond with a 'no, they know everything' argument...

By "they", I presume you mean the majority of the best qualified. Yet you seem certain that your lunatic fringe must be "right". How come?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21599 Gender:	Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics Reply #58 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:43pm 'The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he does not know. - Confucius' I admit there are those who know more than I. I even admit it when I'm wrong. 'I've learned the pitfalls of commenting outside my field. Evidently, you have not.' You have a field? Is it fallow?
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Wasting energy on climate change sceptics
Reply #59 - Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:44pm

# wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

... Galileo and Darwin were arguing against the religious 'vast majority' opinion, ...

It seems you can't differentiate between religion and scientific consensus. No wonder you're so confused.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

... and I was referring to Pythagoras' discovery or announcement that the Earth was not a flat disk floating on the ocean, which was the consensus opinion up to that time.

Didn't Pythagoras teach that the earth is spherical, probably in his religious movement? Is there any indication that the idea was his? Was he more religious leader than scientist?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

As for your question about right or wrong. No right/wrong are not the only two options. They 'could be' almost right, or half right or have it totally backwards. It's entirely conceivable that there is some as yet undiscovered, or overlook process at work. And please, don't immediately respond with a 'no, they know everything' argument...

By "they", I presume you mean the majority of the best qualified. Yet you seem certain that your lunatic fringe must be "right". How come?

That's a pathetic attempt at deflection you know...If you go back to my original point, I haven't actually mentioned 'scientific consensus', and it doesn't matter in the context of 'the vast majority of the best qualified'.
Whether they are religious scientist/scholars (which was the MOST common sort of scientist up until relatively recently) or secular scientists doesn't make any difference to the point that the 'majority' doesn't give any special infallibility.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged