Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisyEven AGW scientists dont really believe in it
"ok folks, my speech is over with. Hope you enjoyed the conference on how meat will destroy Earth! Now excuse me while i fly away in my personal jet and eat a 21 ounce t-bone to go to another conference to complain about shit i cant actually prove!"
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
Maybe because it isnt seriously a debate?Not for nothing, doesn't it worry you, that in order to be a climate change denier people have someone with no relevant degree come out with a FAKE gallup poll. I mean if the case was strong by itself, why don't you have climatologists coming out of the woodwork posting peer reviewed articles that destroys the entire thing. Not saying nobody is publishing on the subjects but the basic premise of man made climate change isn't being seriously disputed.No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisyEven AGW scientists dont really believe in it
"ok folks, my speech is over with. Hope you enjoyed the conference on how meat will destroy Earth! Now excuse me while i fly away in my personal jet and eat a 21 ounce t-bone to go to another conference to complain about shit i cant actually prove!"
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?Oh and by the way. Even if all of this wasn't true. How do people's OPINIONS have any relations with FACTS. If people don't deem something important does that by default mean it isn't? Pretty sure people don't think lightning hitting them is a major issue. I don't think that opinion allows them to play with a kite in a thunderstorm though.Another article showing yet another poll showing global warming is not a concern.
Watts Up With That?
Global warming is not people’s most pressing concern
August 1, 2018
Guest opinion by Tom Harris
Selected Excerpt:
"We often hear claims that man-made climate change is our greatest threat. But according to a recent Gallup poll, very few people in the United States actually believe it is. Indeed, even the United Nations own polling reveals that respondents across the world rate climate change last among issues they would like the UN and governments to focus on. No matter how long the list, climate change is always last."
LINK
There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisyEven AGW scientists dont really believe in it
"ok folks, my speech is over with. Hope you enjoyed the conference on how meat will destroy Earth! Now excuse me while i fly away in my personal jet and eat a 21 ounce t-bone to go to another conference to complain about shit i cant actually prove!"
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
The scientific method is nothing more then people coming up with better explanations. Dumb has nothing to do with it. Einstein came up with a better way to look at the universe then Newton. Newton wasn't dumber then Einstein. That's how science literally works. Again I don't mind you denying man made climate change. I mind you denying man made climate change even when provided with proof, without being able to show an alternative explanation for that proof. This doesn't mean that I'm right, what it does mean is that it's so far the best explanation.Maybe because it isnt seriously a debate?Not for nothing, doesn't it worry you, that in order to be a climate change denier people have someone with no relevant degree come out with a FAKE gallup poll. I mean if the case was strong by itself, why don't you have climatologists coming out of the woodwork posting peer reviewed articles that destroys the entire thing. Not saying nobody is publishing on the subjects but the basic premise of man made climate change isn't being seriously disputed.No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisyEven AGW scientists dont really believe in it
"ok folks, my speech is over with. Hope you enjoyed the conference on how meat will destroy Earth! Now excuse me while i fly away in my personal jet and eat a 21 ounce t-bone to go to another conference to complain about shit i cant actually prove!"
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
Just like what you are doing.. "come up with something better or you are dumb"
Not saying being a climate change denier is as irrational as a young earth creationist by the way. Just that the basic mechanism is the same.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisyEven AGW scientists dont really believe in it
"ok folks, my speech is over with. Hope you enjoyed the conference on how meat will destroy Earth! Now excuse me while i fly away in my personal jet and eat a 21 ounce t-bone to go to another conference to complain about shit i cant actually prove!"
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisyEven AGW scientists dont really believe in it
"ok folks, my speech is over with. Hope you enjoyed the conference on how meat will destroy Earth! Now excuse me while i fly away in my personal jet and eat a 21 ounce t-bone to go to another conference to complain about shit i cant actually prove!"
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
No, with facts I mean facts. Like for instance the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The FACT that humans have been pumping that greenhouse gas into the air at a higher and higher rate. The FACT that the average global temperature is rising. You know FACTS.Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?Oh and by the way. Even if all of this wasn't true. How do people's OPINIONS have any relations with FACTS. If people don't deem something important does that by default mean it isn't? Pretty sure people don't think lightning hitting them is a major issue. I don't think that opinion allows them to play with a kite in a thunderstorm though.Another article showing yet another poll showing global warming is not a concern.
Watts Up With That?
Global warming is not people’s most pressing concern
August 1, 2018
Guest opinion by Tom Harris
Selected Excerpt:
"We often hear claims that man-made climate change is our greatest threat. But according to a recent Gallup poll, very few people in the United States actually believe it is. Indeed, even the United Nations own polling reveals that respondents across the world rate climate change last among issues they would like the UN and governments to focus on. No matter how long the list, climate change is always last."
LINK
Hmmm by facts do you mean models and filling in holes with assumption, like our 2000 year old savage ancestors did with God?
. If it were, the Paris Treaty wouldn't be dead and Congress would give a shit.-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again the chance to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?So the fact that people are hypocrites proves that they don't believe in climate change? It's impossible to be hypocritical about your beliefs? Is that now your new claim? Appeal to hypocrisy
That is a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
First reply to the original poster. Gallup poll. Knock yourself out.No, with facts I mean facts. Like for instance the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The FACT that humans have been pumping that greenhouse gas into the air at a higher and higher rate. The FACT that the average global temperature is rising. You know FACTS.Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?Oh and by the way. Even if all of this wasn't true. How do people's OPINIONS have any relations with FACTS. If people don't deem something important does that by default mean it isn't? Pretty sure people don't think lightning hitting them is a major issue. I don't think that opinion allows them to play with a kite in a thunderstorm though.
Hmmm by facts do you mean models and filling in holes with assumption, like our 2000 year old savage ancestors did with God?
But the only facts that matter s0n is that nobody is giving a shit about climate change in 2018. Everything else is nothing more than internet banter for sites like this.
Please post up for me a poll on voter concerns that doesnt have global warming near the bottom. Links please btw!
Climate change is a banner/billboard that progressives stand in front of and take bows. But it's not mattering in the real world. None of the "decided science" transcends beyond the tiny realm of climate science. In other words, it's not adding up to dick!
@www.whosnotwinning.com
Oh and by the way. Even if all of this wasn't true. How do people's OPINIONS have any relations with FACTS. If people don't deem something important does that by default mean it isn't? Pretty sure people don't think lightning hitting them is a major issue. I don't think that opinion allows them to play with a kite in a thunderstorm though.
-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
How do you know it's trillions? How is the cost offset by an entirely new sector of business being created? And most importantly how many trillions would it cost if the coastline shifts miles inland?-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle
Wasting trillions on "green energy" is not a low consequence action.
First reply to the original poster. Gallup poll. Knock yourself out.No, with facts I mean facts. Like for instance the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The FACT that humans have been pumping that greenhouse gas into the air at a higher and higher rate. The FACT that the average global temperature is rising. You know FACTS.Sure there are. The question is are you willing to accept facts when they are presented?Are you saying there are FACTS that support the agw theory?
Hmmm by facts do you mean models and filling in holes with assumption, like our 2000 year old savage ancestors did with God?
But the only facts that matter s0n is that nobody is giving a shit about climate change in 2018. Everything else is nothing more than internet banter for sites like this.
Please post up for me a poll on voter concerns that doesnt have global warming near the bottom. Links please btw!
Climate change is a banner/billboard that progressives stand in front of and take bows. But it's not mattering in the real world. None of the "decided science" transcends beyond the tiny realm of climate science. In other words, it's not adding up to dick!
@www.whosnotwinning.com
Oh and there is this
Oh and by the way. Even if all of this wasn't true. How do people's OPINIONS have any relations with FACTS. If people don't deem something important does that by default mean it isn't? Pretty sure people don't think lightning hitting them is a major issue. I don't think that opinion allows them to play with a kite in a thunderstorm though.
You just fill in stuff so you can "understand" it like they did.-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.It certainly doesnt give them much credibility, does it?
Its like a parent yelling at a kid about smoking cigs while puffing on one at the same time. The kid is going to make fun of them in their mind.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
If it was a belief, firstly it wouldn't have facts supporting it. If it was a belief I would reject any other explanation. It can't be more fundamentally different then that. If tomorrow some climatologist would publish a better alternative explanation. An explanation that his peers couldn't dispute. I would change what I belief. For instance, when I started on this board, I strongly believed that having guns in the house was irresponsible. Until I had a discussion on here with Ray From Cleveland. During that conversation I was making a point, to make that point I did some research and found that that research didn't support my assertion. Instead of dismissing what I found I conceded, linked what I found and changed my position that handguns in the house are not necessarily irresponsible. Instead of holding on to what I believed I let facts, not beliefs inform my view. It's never fun to admit that your wrong, especially in a place like this, but I rather be wrong then irrational.You just fill in stuff so you can "understand" it like they did.-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?No, it actually doesn't speak to their credibility at all. Hence the logical fallacy. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent or another. You claimed intellectual dishonesty a couple of posts ago, when being yourself intellectually dishonest. It's human.
By the way Harley, I don't want to claim that you are a liar, stupid or any of the sort. But I, just like I believe you, are trying to let the strength of the argument speak for itself. And I don't believe your arguments are at all strong at the moment. You don't believe in man made climate change, fine. But you don't seem to have a better reasoning for the increase in global temperature that fits the available information. You also fly in the face of almost the entire scientific community, people who are trained to gather and analyze that information without bias.
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
"whats that bright light coming from the sky and striking the ground? Hmmm god must be pissed! What else could it be?"
How is that not what you are doing?
You both fill in holes without knowing the FACTS.
Again, im not rejecting carbon is a greenhouse and we release it. I doubt we are changing the natural evolution of Earth. That takes some pretty hard facts for me. Sorry.
I dont mind admitting i am wrong. Self improvement is the way to go!If it was a belief, firstly it wouldn't have facts supporting it. If it was a belief I would reject any other explanation. It can't be more fundamentally different then that. If tomorrow some climatologist would publish a better alternative explanation. An explanation that his peers couldn't dispute. I would change what I belief. For instance, when I started on this board, I strongly believed that having guns in the house was irresponsible. Until I had a discussion on here with Ray From Cleveland. During that conversation I was making a point, to make that point I did some research and found that that research didn't support my assertion. Instead of dismissing what I found I conceded, linked what I found and changed my position that handguns in the house are not necessarily irresponsible. Instead of holding on to what I believed I let facts, not beliefs inform my view. It's never fun to admit that your wrong, especially in a place like this, but I rather be wrong then irrational.You just fill in stuff so you can "understand" it like they did.-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.Why cant something just not be explained? Why does there ALWAYS have to be a reason?
It reminds me of people in the ancient world that had to use Gods to explain everything. Man just cant wait for the facts.
Maybe one day we will progress past that
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
"whats that bright light coming from the sky and striking the ground? Hmmm god must be pissed! What else could it be?"
How is that not what you are doing?
You both fill in holes without knowing the FACTS.
Again, im not rejecting carbon is a greenhouse and we release it. I doubt we are changing the natural evolution of Earth. That takes some pretty hard facts for me. Sorry.
Well I gave the relevant facts already and we aren't going to go understand each other any better by repeating them. So I'll just wish you a good night Harley.I dont mind admitting i am wrong. Self improvement is the way to go!If it was a belief, firstly it wouldn't have facts supporting it. If it was a belief I would reject any other explanation. It can't be more fundamentally different then that. If tomorrow some climatologist would publish a better alternative explanation. An explanation that his peers couldn't dispute. I would change what I belief. For instance, when I started on this board, I strongly believed that having guns in the house was irresponsible. Until I had a discussion on here with Ray From Cleveland. During that conversation I was making a point, to make that point I did some research and found that that research didn't support my assertion. Instead of dismissing what I found I conceded, linked what I found and changed my position that handguns in the house are not necessarily irresponsible. Instead of holding on to what I believed I let facts, not beliefs inform my view. It's never fun to admit that your wrong, especially in a place like this, but I rather be wrong then irrational.You just fill in stuff so you can "understand" it like they did.-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.There is plenty of stuff that can't be explained. What you are doing is rejecting an explanation when given. There are facts, you just aren't accepting them. You bring up God. Do you realize you are using the same logic as a religious person? "I don't wan't to believe that climate change is true so I reject all evidence that proves it." It's the same as a Young Earth creationist rejecting basically the nature of the world because he believes the Earth is 6000 year old.
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
"whats that bright light coming from the sky and striking the ground? Hmmm god must be pissed! What else could it be?"
How is that not what you are doing?
You both fill in holes without knowing the FACTS.
Again, im not rejecting carbon is a greenhouse and we release it. I doubt we are changing the natural evolution of Earth. That takes some pretty hard facts for me. Sorry.
Buuuut i have nothing to admit, here. There are no facts showing me man is changing the evolution of this planet. None.
Yes, you gave facts but that doesnt even come close to implying man is disrupting earth evolution.Well I gave the relevant facts already and we aren't going to go understand each other any better by repeating them. So I'll just wish you a good night Harley.I dont mind admitting i am wrong. Self improvement is the way to go!If it was a belief, firstly it wouldn't have facts supporting it. If it was a belief I would reject any other explanation. It can't be more fundamentally different then that. If tomorrow some climatologist would publish a better alternative explanation. An explanation that his peers couldn't dispute. I would change what I belief. For instance, when I started on this board, I strongly believed that having guns in the house was irresponsible. Until I had a discussion on here with Ray From Cleveland. During that conversation I was making a point, to make that point I did some research and found that that research didn't support my assertion. Instead of dismissing what I found I conceded, linked what I found and changed my position that handguns in the house are not necessarily irresponsible. Instead of holding on to what I believed I let facts, not beliefs inform my view. It's never fun to admit that your wrong, especially in a place like this, but I rather be wrong then irrational.You just fill in stuff so you can "understand" it like they did.-Nope, see a religious person rejects evidence, or explanations in this case. I ask for them. That's the whole point. You reject everything that doesn't fit your belief. I'm offering you time and time again to give me an explanation.Explanations arent facts. I would like FACTS when my sovereignty and all ways of life are threatened.
I wont throw my life away for what ifs. Thats retarded.
So we are both thinking like a religious person.. hmm
-As to the second part. How is believing in climate change throwing away your life? At the very worst the most that's being asked is a change in lifestyle? Ever heard of the concept of low risk, high consequence events? At best I'm wrong and climate change isn't happening. We are all out some money and have learned to recycle (oversimplification I know)
At worst, well we all better learn how to swim.
Your willing to bet on me being wrong and risk not having learned how to swim ( figuratively speaking)?
"whats that bright light coming from the sky and striking the ground? Hmmm god must be pissed! What else could it be?"
How is that not what you are doing?
You both fill in holes without knowing the FACTS.
Again, im not rejecting carbon is a greenhouse and we release it. I doubt we are changing the natural evolution of Earth. That takes some pretty hard facts for me. Sorry.
Buuuut i have nothing to admit, here. There are no facts showing me man is changing the evolution of this planet. None.
Couple of things. Tom Harris the author is besides someone who works as a climate denier also a mechanical engineer. Not anyone with what would be a relevant degree.Another article showing yet another poll showing global warming is not a concern.
Watts Up With That?
Global warming is not people’s most pressing concern
August 1, 2018
Guest opinion by Tom Harris
Selected Excerpt:
"We often hear claims that man-made climate change is our greatest threat. But according to a recent Gallup poll, very few people in the United States actually believe it is. Indeed, even the United Nations own polling reveals that respondents across the world rate climate change last among issues they would like the UN and governments to focus on. No matter how long the list, climate change is always last."
LINK
The link provided is a dedicated climate denier website. that in itself doesn't have to be a problem, if the claims made are sourced, which they aren't. Still not a problem if I could find the relevant polls. Here we do have a problem. Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts This is the latest gallup poll on climate. I do not find the relevant polling data and nothing to suggest that only 2 percent find climate not a pressing concern. the actual number stands at around 50 percent. So not only does your link starts from a bias, and doesn't source. When the claims are checked with the claimed source they appear to be false.
