Is Carl Sagans 'Baloney Detection Kit' Acceptable Among AGW Proponents Today?

This is more evidence of your stupid af-idity :aug08_031:. AGW is over long time so no one can observe it.
You've already demonstrated your grasp of the concept of time is 14th century preschool level.

But apparently your brain is petrified wood.

How Old Is Petrified Wood? (An Answer With Examples!) - Rock Seeker
According to the website for the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, “…the trees in the Black Forest were deposited about 211 million years ago and those in the Blue, Jasper, Crystal, and Rainbow Forests were deposited around 218 million years ago.

And The Times Of India mentions that the petrified wood located in the National Fossil Wood Park contains fossilized wood that is 20 million years old. It also mentions that the Akai Wood Fossil Park has specimens that are an astounding 180 million years old!

But if you think that’s old, there is an area in Brazil that has dated some of their petrified wood samples to be as old as 280 million years!

How Do They Determine How Old Petrified Wood Is?
But how do we really know how old petrified wood is? Well, scientists have technology that can help them help them determine the age of the petrified wood specimen.

According to researchgate.net, there are a few different ways that scientists are able to determine how old petrified wood is.

Relative Dating: By determining the age of the sedimentary rocks in which a fossil is buried. In order to accurately date petrified wood using this method, one must have a good knowledge of the geology of the area in which the fossils are found.

Biostratigraphy: By dating the age of other known organisms fossilised within the same layer. These known fossils are referred to as “index fossils”.

Radiometric Dating: By calculating the percentages of radioactive elements.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to hear Carl Sagan ream you guys a new one for taking his general ways to verify the truth of an argument and twist them around to disprove global warming.
Do you know why none of the so called experts ever start their discussions with past climate changes and why they changed and how we arrived at our present climate?

It’s because CO2 didn’t drive any of those climate changes. CO2 only reinforced those climate changes.

Now are you going to be a denier of that?
That is what I've been hearing all along--that C02 is reinforcing global warming. It is not the only reason or even the most important one. It is the only one we can control, though.
 
Okay, I'm backing away now. I don't know that much about this stuff. I'll let you geniuses sort it all out.
 
I'd love to hear Carl Sagan ream you guys a new one for taking his general ways to verify the truth of an argument and twist them around to disprove global warming.
Do you know why none of the so called experts ever start their discussions with past climate changes and why they changed and how we arrived at our present climate?

It’s because CO2 didn’t drive any of those climate changes. CO2 only reinforced those climate changes.

Now are you going to be a denier of that?
That is what I've been hearing all along--that C02 is reinforcing global warming. It is not the only reason or even the most important one. It is the only one we can control, though.
We can control what we burn.
 
This is more evidence of your stupid af-idity :aug08_031:. AGW is over long time so no one can observe it.
You've already demonstrated your grasp of the concept of time is 14th century preschool level.

But apparently your brain is petrified wood.

How Old Is Petrified Wood? (An Answer With Examples!) - Rock Seeker
According to the website for the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, “…the trees in the Black Forest were deposited about 211 million years ago and those in the Blue, Jasper, Crystal, and Rainbow Forests were deposited around 218 million years ago.

And The Times Of India mentions that the petrified wood located in the National Fossil Wood Park contains fossilized wood that is 20 million years old. It also mentions that the Akai Wood Fossil Park has specimens that are an astounding 180 million years old!

But if you think that’s old, there is an area in Brazil that has dated some of their petrified wood samples to be as old as 280 million years!

How Do They Determine How Old Petrified Wood Is?
But how do we really know how old petrified wood is? Well, scientists have technology that can help them help them determine the age of the petrified wood specimen.

According to researchgate.net, there are a few different ways that scientists are able to determine how old petrified wood is.

Relative Dating: By determining the age of the sedimentary rocks in which a fossil is buried. In order to accurately date petrified wood using this method, one must have a good knowledge of the geology of the area in which the fossils are found.

Biostratigraphy: By dating the age of other known organisms fossilised within the same layer. These known fossils are referred to as “index fossils”.

Radiometric Dating: By calculating the percentages of radioactive elements.

:laughing0301:. They just compare or use radiometric dating which I just said makes assumptions that are wrong in a previous post.

These people have to convince you that it took millions or billions of years as no one was around to witness it. Thus, they can make up any bull shit they want and make it sound like it could happen. Then the liberal media just repeats it until you're brainwashed. It's stupid af like you. You fall for anything.
 
This is more evidence of your stupid af-idity :aug08_031:. AGW is over long time so no one can observe it.
You've already demonstrated your grasp of the concept of time is 14th century preschool level.

But apparently your brain is petrified wood.

How Old Is Petrified Wood? (An Answer With Examples!) - Rock Seeker
According to the website for the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, “…the trees in the Black Forest were deposited about 211 million years ago and those in the Blue, Jasper, Crystal, and Rainbow Forests were deposited around 218 million years ago.

And The Times Of India mentions that the petrified wood located in the National Fossil Wood Park contains fossilized wood that is 20 million years old. It also mentions that the Akai Wood Fossil Park has specimens that are an astounding 180 million years old!

But if you think that’s old, there is an area in Brazil that has dated some of their petrified wood samples to be as old as 280 million years!

How Do They Determine How Old Petrified Wood Is?
But how do we really know how old petrified wood is? Well, scientists have technology that can help them help them determine the age of the petrified wood specimen.

According to researchgate.net, there are a few different ways that scientists are able to determine how old petrified wood is.

Relative Dating: By determining the age of the sedimentary rocks in which a fossil is buried. In order to accurately date petrified wood using this method, one must have a good knowledge of the geology of the area in which the fossils are found.

Biostratigraphy: By dating the age of other known organisms fossilised within the same layer. These known fossils are referred to as “index fossils”.

Radiometric Dating: By calculating the percentages of radioactive elements.

:laughing0301:. They just compare or use radiometric dating which I just said makes assumptions that are wrong in a previous post.

These people have to convince you that it took millions or billions of years as no one was around to witness it. Thus, they can make up any bull shit they want and make it sound like it could happen. Then the liberal media just repeats it until you're brainwashed. It's stupid af like you. You fall for anything.
Please confine your freakish voodoo chanting to the religious section. Thank you.
 
Please confine your freakish voodoo chanting to the religious section. Thank you.

You are a fossil fuel denier. Anyone who denies fossils fuels is the biggest idiot in the world bar none.

We see fossil fuel use every day in our lives. We do not see any AGW and won't know unless you compare data over long time. It hasn't been long enough yet. Anyway, I proposed a solution via carbon engineering and it appears it is starting in more and more countries.

Wind turbines haven't been successful. Nobody wants to live near them and it kills too many birds. We are having PG&E shutdowns due to fire danger. Solar or wind power hasn't helped prevent them at all. These AGW people are looney. Their solutions are failures. We must have fossil fuels you morons!!!

I propose sending these deniers to Canada.
 
Last edited:
Please confine your freakish voodoo chanting to the religious section. Thank you.

You are a fossil fuel denier. Anyone who denies fossils fuels is the biggest idiot in the world bar none.

We see fossil fuel use every day in our lives. We do not see any AGW and won't know unless you compare data over long time. It hasn't been long enough yet. Anyway, I proposed a solution via carbon engineering and it appears it is starting in more and more countries.

Wind turbines haven't been successful. Nobody wants to live near them and it kills too many birds. We are having PG&E shutdowns due to fire danger. Solar or wind power hasn't helped prevent them at all. These AGW people are looney. Their solutions are failures. We must have fossil fuels you morons!!!

I propose sending these deniers to Canada.

So you are;
a) fossil fuel advocate/climate change denier
b) creationist who thinks earth is 6000 years old
and c) someone who is constantly telling everyone else they are wrong

That's 3 strikes in my book.
 
I ask this because he seems to have nailed the way Climate Change advocates work in several ways.

The Baloney Detection Kit - Brain Pickings - Pocket

Sagan shares nine of these tools:
  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Lets see, all of them except number 4 are fails for the AGW community whoi repeatedly:
1) refuse to share their raw data and methods of 'adjustment' and when they do they refuse to justify the nature of the adjustment.
2) AGW proponents try to squelch all debate, even fantasize about blowing up their critics, lol.
3) They use 'consensus of scientist' ad nauseum.
4) no problemo.
5) They act as if all doubt of their AGW hypothesis is sacred and handed down from Gaea herself, lol.
6) Their data is not only vague they use it in a completely self serving way, for example they use tree ring data when it suits them then ignore when it doesnt.
7) They have a chain of argument like no other that goes from the irrelevance of changes in proximity to the Sun, to how the oceans are hiding the temperature increase.
8) The simplest explanation is that we vary in our distance to the sun in cycles and the warming of the last century and a half is completely consistent with these cycles.

I guess it is better that Carl not be burned at the AGW stake, but were he saying such things today, he would be.
I use the Baloney Detection Kit in social studies when we talk about analyzing sources. It's good stuff.


me, too!

it works GREAT in busting the balloney of conservative beliefs!

the conservative beliefs that conservatives NEVER QUESTION!
 
Please confine your freakish voodoo chanting to the religious section. Thank you.

You are a fossil fuel denier. Anyone who denies fossils fuels is the biggest idiot in the world bar none.

We see fossil fuel use every day in our lives. We do not see any AGW and won't know unless you compare data over long time. It hasn't been long enough yet. Anyway, I proposed a solution via carbon engineering and it appears it is starting in more and more countries.

Wind turbines haven't been successful. Nobody wants to live near them and it kills too many birds. We are having PG&E shutdowns due to fire danger. Solar or wind power hasn't helped prevent them at all. These AGW people are looney. Their solutions are failures. We must have fossil fuels you morons!!!

I propose sending these deniers to Canada.

So you are;
a) fossil fuel advocate/climate change denier
b) creationist who thinks earth is 6000 years old
and c) someone who is constantly telling everyone else they are wrong

That's 3 strikes in my book.

A) Yes, I'm for fossil fuels as it is necessary, but against air and water pollution that it causes. I'm not a climate change denier. We are getting warmer because of magnetic field reduction. It has nothing to do with CO2 which the libs promote to blame humans. The carbon engineering should make it better for us getting fossil fuels and remove the complaints from the libs. We can't plant the trees just anywhere.
B) The 6,000 year Earth has scientific basis, but not what I brought up here. You brought it up for no reason. Why do you think it's important? How is it related to warming?
C) No, I only tell those who are wrong that they are wrong. In this thread, not only are you wrong, but you were exposed as a hypocrite. That's why you've lost your marbles over this.
 
Please confine your freakish voodoo chanting to the religious section. Thank you.

You are a fossil fuel denier. Anyone who denies fossils fuels is the biggest idiot in the world bar none.

We see fossil fuel use every day in our lives. We do not see any AGW and won't know unless you compare data over long time. It hasn't been long enough yet. Anyway, I proposed a solution via carbon engineering and it appears it is starting in more and more countries.

Wind turbines haven't been successful. Nobody wants to live near them and it kills too many birds. We are having PG&E shutdowns due to fire danger. Solar or wind power hasn't helped prevent them at all. These AGW people are looney. Their solutions are failures. We must have fossil fuels you morons!!!

I propose sending these deniers to Canada.

So you are;
a) fossil fuel advocate/climate change denier
b) creationist who thinks earth is 6000 years old
and c) someone who is constantly telling everyone else they are wrong

That's 3 strikes in my book.

A) Yes, I'm for fossil fuels as it is necessary, but against air and water pollution that it causes. I'm not a climate change denier. We are getting warmer because of magnetic field reduction. It has nothing to do with CO2 which the libs promote to blame humans. The carbon engineering should make it better for us getting fossil fuels and remove the complaints from the libs. We can't plant the trees just anywhere.
B) The 6,000 year Earth has scientific basis, but not what I brought up here. You brought it up for no reason. Why do you think it's important? How is it related to warming?
C) No, I only tell those who are wrong that they are wrong. In this thread, not only are you wrong, but you were exposed as a hypocrite. That's why you've lost your marbles over this.
I bet you're a Democrat too ....strike 4:71:
 
me, too!

it works GREAT in busting the balloney (sic) of conservative beliefs!

the conservative beliefs that conservatives NEVER QUESTION!

The ones cited in our Constitution, as created by our Founding Fathers, who were Libertarians - fighters for liberty and freedom. You should learn about such concepts, Mister Balloney (sic). You misspelled it even after many others showed you how it is spelled - even in the title of the thread. But I digest.
 

Forum List

Back
Top