The Envirowhackos are Melting!

[SSDD]

Oh it's all over the abortion threads. The question that comes up again and again is: if it's a sin to abort an embryo why is it not a sin to spill your seed on the ground?

That sounds more like a religious argument than a scientific one and has nothing whatsoever to do with killing a living human being. It is hard to get people to change their religious beliefs...as evidenced here on the environment forum...people who believe in man made climate change believe with religious fervor...they have to believe because there is precious little empirical evidence to actually create informed certainty. You can point out the failures of the hypothesis, ask for observed, measured data that they can't produce over and over again, point out the obvious flaws in the models, etc. etc. etc...and they continue to believe...

Belief in something that can't be demonstrated with observations and measurements simply is not rational...I of course it isn't proper to say that such beliefs are wrong...especially in spiritual matters where faith and belief are really all there is...even atheists "believe" in something that they can no more prove than religious zealots...in matters of science, however, and arguments on scientific topics, faith and belief simply are not rational..if you can't provide observed, measured evidence in sufficient quantity to back up your belief, then you really don't hold a scientifically valid position

Human development is a matter of science, not of faith.

Yep...once fertilization is complete, you have a developing human being...one that will continue to develop in one form or another till the day he or she dies...before fertilization, you have cells from your own body...cells that only have your own DNA, cells that have little more importance than toenail clippings...while they have the potential to be part of human development...alone, they are just your cells...if you start getting into what you do with them, and whether that is right or wrong, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of morality...

That is the realm of faith...and faith is hard to break...again...look at the people who believe so fervently in man made global warming that they are willing to destroy economies..hurt poor people who really can't afford their solutions in terrible ways, ruin business, take financial security away from families...all for the sake of what they believe with no observed, measured, empirical evidence to support those beliefs. People will behave in most irrational ways in support of what they believe...stick to the science and keep pointing out that one involves observed, measured data and the other doesn't.

 

[SweetSue92]

Oh it's all over the abortion threads. The question that comes up again and again is: if it's a sin to abort an embryo why is it not a sin to spill your seed on the ground?

That sounds more like a religious argument than a scientific one and has nothing whatsoever to do with killing a living human being. It is hard to get people to change their religious beliefs...as evidenced here on the environment forum...people who believe in man made climate change believe with religious fervor...they have to believe because there is precious little empirical evidence to actually create informed certainty. You can point out the failures of the hypothesis, ask for observed, measured data that they can't produce over and over again, point out the obvious flaws in the models, etc. etc. etc...and they continue to believe...

Belief in something that can't be demonstrated with observations and measurements simply is not rational...I of course it isn't proper to say that such beliefs are wrong...especially in spiritual matters where faith and belief are really all there is...even atheists "believe" in something that they can no more prove than religious zealots...in matters of science, however, and arguments on scientific topics, faith and belief simply are not rational..if you can't provide observed, measured evidence in sufficient quantity to back up your belief, then you really don't hold a scientifically valid position

Human development is a matter of science, not of faith.

Yep...once fertilization is complete, you have a developing human being...one that will continue to develop in one form or another till the day he or she dies...before fertilization, you have cells from your own body...cells that only have your own DNA, cells that have little more importance than toenail clippings...while they have the potential to be part of human development...alone, they are just your cells...if you start getting into what you do with them, and whether that is right or wrong, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of morality...

That is the realm of faith...and faith is hard to break...again...look at the people who believe so fervently in man made global warming that they are willing to destroy economies..hurt poor people who really can't afford their solutions in terrible ways, ruin business, take financial security away from families...all for the sake of what they believe with no observed, measured, empirical evidence to support those beliefs. People will behave in most irrational ways in support of what they believe...stick to the science and keep pointing out that one involves observed, measured data and the other doesn't.

I don't want to derail the thread by discussing the particulars of abortion. My point was only to say that Leftists love science in some arenas; deny it entirely in others. That was all.

 

[SSDD]

Oh it's all over the abortion threads. The question that comes up again and again is: if it's a sin to abort an embryo why is it not a sin to spill your seed on the ground?

That sounds more like a religious argument than a scientific one and has nothing whatsoever to do with killing a living human being. It is hard to get people to change their religious beliefs...as evidenced here on the environment forum...people who believe in man made climate change believe with religious fervor...they have to believe because there is precious little empirical evidence to actually create informed certainty. You can point out the failures of the hypothesis, ask for observed, measured data that they can't produce over and over again, point out the obvious flaws in the models, etc. etc. etc...and they continue to believe...

Belief in something that can't be demonstrated with observations and measurements simply is not rational...I of course it isn't proper to say that such beliefs are wrong...especially in spiritual matters where faith and belief are really all there is...even atheists "believe" in something that they can no more prove than religious zealots...in matters of science, however, and arguments on scientific topics, faith and belief simply are not rational..if you can't provide observed, measured evidence in sufficient quantity to back up your belief, then you really don't hold a scientifically valid position

Human development is a matter of science, not of faith.

Yep...once fertilization is complete, you have a developing human being...one that will continue to develop in one form or another till the day he or she dies...before fertilization, you have cells from your own body...cells that only have your own DNA, cells that have little more importance than toenail clippings...while they have the potential to be part of human development...alone, they are just your cells...if you start getting into what you do with them, and whether that is right or wrong, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of morality...

That is the realm of faith...and faith is hard to break...again...look at the people who believe so fervently in man made global warming that they are willing to destroy economies..hurt poor people who really can't afford their solutions in terrible ways, ruin business, take financial security away from families...all for the sake of what they believe with no observed, measured, empirical evidence to support those beliefs. People will behave in most irrational ways in support of what they believe...stick to the science and keep pointing out that one involves observed, measured data and the other doesn't.

I don't want to derail the thread by discussing the particulars of abortion. My point was only to say that Leftists love science in some arenas; deny it entirely in others. That was all.

That is pretty much what I was saying as well...look at the environment forum as a whole...leftists making pseudoscientific claims regarding climate with no empirical evidence to support their claims.

 

[Crick]

The people SSDD labels here as liberals are those who accept the conclusions of the IPCC. SSDD is the biggest purveyor of pseudoscience on this entire board. Mainstream scientists are not whackos. Those still attempting to deny anthropogenic global warming might well be, but that would be a different thread.

 

[SSDD]

The people SSDD labels here as liberals are those who accept the conclusions of the IPCC. SSDD is the biggest purveyor of pseudoscience on this entire board. Mainstream scientists are not whackos. Those still attempting to deny anthropogenic global warming might well be, but that would be a different thread.

Sorry crick..you could't be more wrong...but then, that's par for the course where you are concerned...liberal has a particular meaning and if one doesn't meet that definition, then I wouldn't label them as liberal...

As far as who is purveying what...I am asking for evidence to claims...which you can't provide...that makes you the purveyor of pseudoscience...and me the unfulfilled asker of questions...

As to the rest, if you don't like what the physical laws say or predict...that isn't my problem...if you weren't so bamboozled by pseudoscience, then you, like me, could accept the statements of physical laws at face value, and revel in the fact that no one can produce the first piece of actual evidence to prove their statements wrong.

 

[jc456]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

 

[SSDD]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So in science it’s acceptable to pick a side and suppress all alternatives?

Not inviting idiot deniers to the table is not "suppression". All of you denier fools are free to stand on the corner with a bullhorn amd embarrass yourselves any time you like.


And yes, it is not only acceptable to pick the correct side, it is smart.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

^^

Echo chamber posts: 5 million

Published science: 0

 

[SSDD]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

^^

Echo chamber posts: 5 million

Published science: 0

Still spewing the opinion someone gave you because you aren't bright enough to have an informed one of your own?

Care to show me a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses? Even one? Didn't think so. That would be because there isn't one...not a single one.

 

[Crepitus]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The whole world has the evidence he asked for, I'm asked ng a separate question. Try reading the thread before commenting.

 

[SSDD]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The whole world has the evidence he asked for, I'm asked ng a separate question. Try reading the thread before commenting.

The whole world has it and yet, none of you alarmist seem to be able to bring a single piece of it here...sounds like you guys are a bunch of liars....

 

[Crepitus]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

You are very aptly sscreen-named. Truly a one trick pony.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The whole world has it and yet, none of you alarmist seem to be able to bring a single piece of it here..

Of course, any child with Google can produce mountains of evidence. It's just that nobody has any desire to argue the truth of robust, accepted scientific theories with uneducated slobs like you.

It really is that simple.

 

[Crepitus]

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

^^

Echo chamber posts: 5 million

Published science: 0

Still spewing the opinion someone gave you because you aren't bright enough to have an informed one of your own?

Care to show me a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses? Even one? Didn't think so. That would be because there isn't one...not a single one.

Published papers confirming global warming. There Are only thousands of them.

 

[SSDD]

The whole world has it and yet, none of you alarmist seem to be able to bring a single piece of it here..

Of course, any child with Google can produce mountains of evidence. It's just that nobody has any desire to argue the truth of robust, accepted scientific theories with uneducated slobs like you.

It really is that simple.

You are like crick...I suppose you aren't able to understand the difference between data and evidence...

There isn't any actual evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....if there were, you wouldn't be able to escape it...it would be every where...and even an uneducated dolt such as yourself would be able to produce it on command just to shut up skeptics like myself...of course, if such evidence existed, I wouldn't be skeptic..being someone who values having an informed opinion...I couldn't live with myself if I were like you... limited to only having an opinion that someone with a political agenda gave me..

You can make all the excuses you like for no one being able to produce the simple, straight forward evidence I ask for, but you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[SSDD]

Does that mean "yes"?

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

^^

Echo chamber posts: 5 million

Published science: 0

Still spewing the opinion someone gave you because you aren't bright enough to have an informed one of your own?

Care to show me a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses? Even one? Didn't think so. That would be because there isn't one...not a single one.

Published papers confirming global warming

I didn't ask for a paper confirming that it has gotten warmer.. that isn't in dispute.. I asked for a paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by human activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our production of so called greenhouse gasses.

And not a single such paper has ever been published.

 

[Pilot1]

NBC is just another Left Wing/Democrat PROPAGANDA machine just like, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NYT, Washpo, AP, Reuters, etc.

How can a so called "journalist", "reporter", or "broadcaster" deem that "the science is settled", and the "debate is over" when scientists can not OBJECTIVELY tell the difference when the climate changes naturally, or due to man's influence?

 

[Crepitus]

are you saying you have the evidence he asked for?

The same people who gave him his opinion, told him that the evidence I asked for existed...he doesn't need to see it, and really doesn't care whether it exists or not...he is in the business of being a dupe, not the business of thinking, and examining what passes for evidence himself...if he did that, he would be a skeptic..and being a skeptic is hard...being a dupe is easy peasy.

^^

Echo chamber posts: 5 million

Published science: 0

Still spewing the opinion someone gave you because you aren't bright enough to have an informed one of your own?

Care to show me a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses? Even one? Didn't think so. That would be because there isn't one...not a single one.

Published papers confirming global warming

I didn't ask for a paper confirming that it has gotten warmer.. that isn't in dispute.. I asked for a paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by human activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our production of so called greenhouse gasses.

And not a single such paper has ever been published.

Hundreds have been. I could tattoo them on your ass in red ink and you'd still deny them though. We've been down this road before, and I linked to document after document and you found some reason to discount them all, often because the papers said things like "probably" and "most likely" and things like that. What fools like you fail to realize is that that is the language of science, there are never any absolutes. It's the same straw you idiots grasp at when the FBI says they have "high confidence" that tRump conspired with Russians.

But you go ahead and cling to your delusions, I'm done with fools like you.

 

[SSDD]

Hundreds have been. I could tattoo them on your ass in red ink and you'd still deny them though

Right...I believe that you believe they have been published...but alas they haven't...you can't name a single one. I can ask for things like that in perfect confidence that no one, anywhere is going to step up and provide one because there are none.

We've been down this road before, and I linked to document after document and you found some reason to discount them all, often because the papers said things like "probably" and "most likely" and things like that.

You do get that there is a difference between empirically measuring, and quantifying a thing, and making comments like maybe, probably, and most likely don't you" One is actual science, and the other is just an opinion based on some undefined, nebulous "thing".

What fools like you fail to realize is that that is the language of science, there are never any absolutes. It's the same straw you idiots grasp at when the FBI says they have "high confidence" that tRump conspired with Russians.

Really? Science is littered with absolute statements..they are called physical laws...

But you go ahead and cling to your delusions, I'm done with fools like you.

You are the one who is deluded if you believe statements like probably, most likely , etc are sufficient grounds upon which to spend trillions of dollars.