Global Warming is political "science" and politicians need a question put to them

[Cardinal Carminative]

How dumb do you have to be to follow the opinions of someone who refuses to follow the scientific method?

Oh jeez. You can't even stick with a simple topic.

Ugh.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Dumb enough not answer my two simple questions I asked this fake scientist:

POST 117

"What is the proxy data resolution of Tree rings from the paper?

How can Tree Rings measure snowfall when it is dormant?"

=====

Her/Him reply at post 118:

"-Yawn-"

My reply POST 120

Yeah, those reasonable questions are too much for you then, sleep well.



The turds next evasion at POST 139

"Ummm, yeah, your questions are always insightful and deep. Sorry I didn't give it the respect it "deserved".

My reply POST 146:

"Translation: I do not know the answers to easy questions because I don't know how to find them.

This was too easy"

The asshole then deflects further by asking me questions at POST 148:

"Then show me mathematically why the resolution details would make a significant issue.

(Don't worry, I know you won't, that's not your game)."

My Reply at POST 153:

LOL you expect me to answer your questions when you HABITUALLY ignore my questions.




You are ducking because you don't have the answer to easy questions and comically you don't even realize that I put you on the spot with those easy questions in the first place making a fool of you in front of the public reading and see YOU avoid easy to answer questions.



The hypocrite replies at POST 154:

"LOL. (I knew you couldn't)."

The turd who never answered my two simple questions has the gall to say I couldn't answer questions after he spends time making 4 evasive replies to these two easy to answer questions:

What is the proxy data resolution of Tree rings from the paper?

How can Tree Rings measure snowfall when it is dormant?

It is obvious the turd doesn't know.

This is a low-level thinking warmist/alarmist GOOK eating turd who shows NO evidence of real science training who often acts like a child and avoids questions posed by several members in various threads and gets schooled by several who have OBVIOUS science training and research career.

LOLOL. Like you have a clue what your question actually means.

If you did you'd tell me why your question even MATTERS. LOL. I don't answer your question because I don't know that it matters.

Ball's in your court (but everyone knows you won't answer it).


LOL.

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOLOL. Like you have a clue what your question actually means.

If you did you'd tell me why your question even MATTERS. LOL. I don't answer your question because I don't know that it matters.

Ball's in your court (but everyone knows you won't answer it).


LOL.

Now you are up to 5 posts over two questions you never answered, you could have just ignored it but you can't resist being a full bore turd pile about it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not really. I noted that if laypeople are faced with a choice of which science to go with they should stick with the consensus. We lack the skill to side with a minority opinion.



Never said Lindzen wasn’t just that he is an outlier in the field.



Nope

Lindzen is not an ‘outlier’ (except to Pravda) and consensus is not science, it’s politics.
What’s more, whose consensus?

 

[westwall]

Oh jeez. You can't even stick with a simple topic.

Ugh.

Sure I can. The globull warming crowd commit scientific fraud everytime they push their tall tales.

They rely on dumb people, such as yourself, to scream loudly so that they can get paid.

It's an old scam, they have merely perfected it.

 

[westwall]

LOLOL. Like you have a clue what your question actually means.

If you did you'd tell me why your question even MATTERS. LOL. I don't answer your question because I don't know that it matters.

Ball's in your court (but everyone knows you won't answer it).


LOL.

You sure laugh a lot when it isn't appropriate.

You MUST be insane.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You sure laugh a lot when it isn't appropriate.

You MUST be insane.

LOL.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really a problem. Especially when the different methods are clearly marked as such (as they are on the HOckey Stick).

It's not a problem only for dumbasses who understand nothing about science.. A graph of actual temperatures is not comparable to a temperatures inferred from tree rings. They also are not "clearly marked." The chart is propaganda, not science.

But more to the point I guess I don't really know what the problem is. If a proxy outputs a temperature estimate in degC why can't it be compared with a different method which also measures temperature in degC?

Yeah, we know you don't understand what the problem is. That's because your a scientific ignoramus.

When you say "error probabilities" it sounds like you are just throwing out random sciencey-sounding words. I say that as someone who works with statistics a lot.

ROFL! I doubt it.

I think you are just handwaving. OF COURSE there's going to be different errors, but that doesn't mean you can't possibly compare two proxies!

They aren't two proxies, moron. One is a proxy and the other is an actual measurement.

This is the "divergence problem" in some arctic trees. But there's a lot of good tree ring proxy info that stands up.

Does it stand up? How do you know?

 

[bripat9643]

God just STOP IT! No one is calling you DUMB. Read what I'm actually SAYING!!!!!!!

Basically that's exactly what you're saying: the voters are too stupid to evaluate what scientists claim.

What I am saying and have said is YOUR OPINION ON SCIENCE WHICH YOU HAVE NO BACKGROUND IN IS EXACTLY WORTHLESS. That doesn't mean you are DUMB.

How would you know whether it's "worthless." By your own concession, you're too stupid to evaluate claims about science.

My point is and will remain (regardless of how dumb you actually are) that when you are unfamiliar with an area of expertise it is IRRATIONAL for you to side with the minority opinion that area of expertise.

Truth isn't determined by popular vote, moron. Even if 99% of all the experts agree on a claim, it only takes one man with facts and logic to prove it wrong.

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”​

How dumb does one have to be to NOT understand this simple point?

Let's see...based on your reply to this one.

I understand that your point is the wrong.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Basically that's exactly what you're saying: the voters are too stupid to evaluate what scientists claim.

I'm saying that are NOT SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED IN THAT AREA.

Jeez you guys can't argue rationally.

How would you know whether it's "worthless."

BY DEFINITION. Let's say I had an opinion that gasoline powered cars actually had a leprechaun in them that turned the gears, but I've never looked under a car hood. Would my "skepticism" of "internal combustion" be worth anything?

By your own concession, you're too stupid to evaluate claims about science.

Well, I am a scientist, so not necessarily so. But in the case of climate science (which is not my primary area) I will gladly admit that I am insufficiently skilled in this area to make significant claims against the majority view.

Even if 99% of all the experts agree on a claim, it only takes one man with facts and logic to prove it wrong.

Why do you think YOU are able to "prove it wrong"? Are you educated in this area? Or are you more likely to just be wrong yourself?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm saying that are NOT SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED IN THAT AREA.

Jeez you guys can't argue rationally.

It doesn't matter whether I have some official title or not. Credentials do not prove you are correct. Being in the majority doesn't prove you are right. Those are two logical fallacies: appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. You claim to be a "scientists," but you employ logical fallacies in your arguments.

BY DEFINITION. Let's say I had an opinion that gasoline powered cars actually had a leprechaun in them that turned the gears, but I've never looked under a car hood. Would my "skepticism" of "internal combustion" be worth anything?

Around the turn of the century there was a man who said the continents moved. All the expert geologists laughed at him.

Who turned out to be right?

Well, I am a scientist, so not necessarily so. But in the case of climate science (which is not my primary area) I will gladly admit that I am insufficiently skilled in this area to make significant claims against the majority view.

You're an ideologue. Your opinions have nothing to do with science. You have even admitted as much.

Why do you think YOU are able to "prove it wrong"? Are you educated in this area? Or are you more likely to just be wrong yourself?

I've looked at the evidence. I even posted some of it in this thread. You simply ignored it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BY DEFINITION. Let's say I had an opinion that gasoline powered cars actually had a leprechaun in them that turned the gears, but I've never looked under a car hood. Would my "skepticism" of "internal combustion" be worth anything?

Do you think we need to spend $76 trillion to save the leprechauns?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It doesn't matter whether I have some official title or not. Credentials do not prove you are correct. Being in the majority doesn't prove you are right. Those are two logical fallacies: appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. You claim to be a "scientists," but you employ logical fallacies in your arguments.

I wish someone could explain this to you. Apparently you are of the opinion that you are able to do anything. You are wrong. There are things you DO NOT know how to do. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Around the turn of the century there was a man who said the continents moved. All the expert geologists laughed at him.

And, indeed, Wegner was wrong. Yes the continental PLATES move, but Wegner's "Continental Drift" hypothesis was foundationally wrong. He didn't have a mechanism for how they would move (he proposed things like gravitational tides etc.) and he didn't really know the structure of the plates. The ONLY thing he knew was that fossils on either side of the Atlantic as well as physical features matched up.

Plate Tectonics is the RIGHT answer, not Continental Drift. Continental drift was an important first step but it was ultimately a failed hypothesis because it failed to accurately explain what was really going on.

You're an ideologue. Your opinions have nothing to do with science. You have even admitted as much.

My position is: Go with the experts and go with the majority of the experts unless I know better.

This is why I don't gamble in Las Vegas (betting against the house) and it's why I don't side with flat earthers.

I've looked at the evidence. I even posted some of it in this thread. You simply ignored it.

I doubt very highly that you have the expertise to interpret said evidence.

Well, let's put it this way: whatever you do for a living, I bet I do it better. Prove me wrong.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Do you think we need to spend $76 trillion to save the leprechauns?

yes.

 

[westwall]

I'm saying that are NOT SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED IN THAT AREA.

Jeez you guys can't argue rationally.



BY DEFINITION. Let's say I had an opinion that gasoline powered cars actually had a leprechaun in them that turned the gears, but I've never looked under a car hood. Would my "skepticism" of "internal combustion" be worth anything?



Well, I am a scientist, so not necessarily so. But in the case of climate science (which is not my primary area) I will gladly admit that I am insufficiently skilled in this area to make significant claims against the majority view.




Why do you think YOU are able to "prove it wrong"? Are you educated in this area? Or are you more likely to just be wrong yourself?

No, you are a pseudo scientist at best.

 

[westwall]

I wish someone could explain this to you. Apparently you are of the opinion that you are able to do anything. You are wrong. There are things you DO NOT know how to do. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.



And, indeed, Wegner was wrong. Yes the continental PLATES move, but Wegner's "Continental Drift" hypothesis was foundationally wrong. He didn't have a mechanism for how they would move (he proposed things like gravitational tides etc.) and he didn't really know the structure of the plates. The ONLY thing he knew was that fossils on either side of the Atlantic as well as physical features matched up.

Plate Tectonics is the RIGHT answer, not Continental Drift. Continental drift was an important first step but it was ultimately a failed hypothesis because it failed to accurately explain what was really going on.





My position is: Go with the experts and go with the majority of the experts unless I know better.

This is why I don't gamble in Las Vegas (betting against the house) and it's why I don't side with flat earthers.



I doubt very highly that you have the expertise to interpret said evidence.

Well, let's put it this way: whatever you do for a living, I bet I do it better. Prove me wrong.

Wegner was correct. Plate tectonics is the engine FOR continental drift. Now, let's test your so called scientist claim, who postulated the actual mechanism of plate tectonics?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, you are a pseudo scientist at best.

This isn't about me (even though you desperately want to make it about me). It isn't even about YOU. It's about how people function in regards to information they actually understand.

As I said: I'm 100% certain that whatever job you do, I can do better. <<do you know why I said that? HINT: NOT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT. I don't know what you do (I assume it's simple), but the point is just because someone has an opinion on a technical topic it doesn't have any value if that person is NOT SUFFICIENTLY KNOWLEDGEABLE on the topic.

To be quite honest, the fact that you are debating me on this simple, obvious point shows you are only interested in trolling. You aren't even reading what is said.

Either you are extremely stupid (I actually kind of doubt that) or you are being wholly disingenuous.

Which is it? Are you dumb as a box of hammers or just a troll?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wegner was correct.

LOLOL. Wagner didn't know anything other than the coasts lines lined up and fossils matched. That's it.

Plate tectonics is the engine FOR continental drift.

Plate tectonics is what SUPPLANTED continental drift.

Continental drift said the CONTINENTS moved around, when in fact it was the PLATES (both oceanic and continental) in motion.

Now, let's test your so called scientist claim, who postulated the actual mechanism of plate tectonics?

Probably Vine and Matthews, but I don't know for certain the actual names for sure, but I do know that it wasn't until the 1960's when the navy started doing sonar on the sea floor. I believe Burrell in 1914 originally proposed or suggested the "aesthenosphere" but it would have required more detailed understanding of the seismic attenuation of the aesthenosphere.

I'm getting really tired of your fake-ass "quizzes". I've never seen you post ONE SINGLE THING that indicates you have even a SMIDGE of knowledge in this area.

You are a troll straight up.

Why DON'T YOU wow us with your knowledge of geology, troll? (You won't. You'll say "Oh I looked at the Davis Formation! What do you know about that formation? IF you dont' know the exact formation I worked on you aren't a real geologist!"

What a douche.

 

[bripat9643]

I wish someone could explain this to you. Apparently you are of the opinion that you are able to do anything. You are wrong. There are things you DO NOT know how to do. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

No, I can't do anything, but one thing I can do is spot bad arguments. Arguments that rely on logical fallacies are automatically invalid. Your inability to commit logic is why you don't understand that.

And, indeed, Wegner was wrong. Yes the continental PLATES move, but Wegner's "Continental Drift" hypothesis was foundationally wrong. He didn't have a mechanism for how they would move (he proposed things like gravitational tides etc.) and he didn't really know the structure of the plates. The ONLY thing he knew was that fossils on either side of the Atlantic as well as physical features matched up.

No, Wagner was not wrong. He was certainly more right than the so-called experts who laughed at him. All you're whining about is the fact that didn't have all the details worked out. However the basic premise of his theory was correct, and still is correct: Continents move. They are not fixed in place.

Plate Tectonics is the RIGHT answer, not Continental Drift. Continental drift was an important first step but it was ultimately a failed hypothesis because it failed to accurately explain what was really going on.

The bottom line is that contrary to what all the experts insisted, continents move.

My position is: Go with the experts and go with the majority of the experts unless I know better.

This is why I don't gamble in Las Vegas (betting against the house) and it's why I don't side with flat earthers.

Your position is a logical fallacy. You repeat it stupidly because you lack the capacity to commit logic

I doubt very highly that you have the expertise to interpret said evidence.

Well, let's put it this way: whatever you do for a living, I bet I do it better. Prove me wrong.

Oh really? So you believe that someone who is incapable of recognizing a logical fallacy, and who doesn't understand the problem with using them, has more expertise at interpreting the evidence?

You are too stupid to comprehend how pathetic your "argument" is.

 

[bripat9643]

No, you are a pseudo scientist at best.

He's one of those dumbasses who mindlessly regurgitates the "follow the science" mantra when he obviously doesn't understand the first thing about science.