OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[fncceo]

Even the smartest scientist who ever lived couldn't have a "scientific discussion" with an orangutan.

The fact that you consider anyone who disagrees with you on this topic to be an Ape is further proof that you're not interested in discussion, merely proselytising.

Proselytising is a methodology of religion, not science.

 

[Crick]

The fact that you consider anyone who disagrees with you on this topic to be an Ape is further proof that you're not interested in discussion, merely proselytising.

Proselytising is a methodology of religion, not science.

I've posted more science on this forum that any other user: actual peer reviewed studies from fully refereed science journals. And I never said anyone here was an ape. It was a simile, not a metaphor.

 

[fncceo]

It was a simile, not a metaphor.

In fact, not a simile is this context. If you had said 'Discussing this with you is LIKE discussing with an Orangutan ", that would be a simile.

What you said was, "Even the smartest scientist couldn't have a discussion with an Orangutan ".

Assuming you weren't being literal, you are using Orangutan as a substitute for the person in the discussion with the scientist.

That, Sir, is metaphor.

 

[Crick]

In fact, not a simile is this context. If you had said 'Discussing this with you is LIKE discussing with an Orangutan ", that would be a simile.

What you said was, "Even the smartest scientist couldn't have a discussion with an Orangutan ".

Assuming you weren't being literal, you are using Orangutan as a substitute for the person in the discussion with the scientist.

That, Sir, is metaphor.

In the example, I WAS being literal. I was illustrating why a scientific opinion is not always possible. I've called enough people on this forum stupid, lying idiots that even were I accusing one of them of being an orangutan it wouldn't change a thing. You accused me of not supporting scientific discussion. I reject that. I have made numerous attempts to do so and have been met with nothing but lies and ignorance. If you want to talk to someone around here about the quality of their debate, I think there are a great deal more suitable targets than poster Crick.

 

[fncceo]

You accused me of not supporting scientific discussion.

You don't support discussion. You support screaming down from a pulpit prognostications that you regurgitate from websites and scream epithets at anyone who might question them.

Only a Grand Inquisitor would consider that to be discussion.

I don't blame you for that. Both sides in what is clearly a political debate, not scientific, use the same tactics.

I merely point out that proselytising isn't scientific discussion.

 

[Crick]

You don't support discussion. You support screaming down from a pulpit prognostications that you regurgitate from websites and scream epithets at anyone who might question them.

Only a Grand Inquisitor would consider that to be discussion.

I don't blame you for that. Both sides in what is clearly a political debate, not scientific, use the same tactics.

I merely point out that proselytising isn't scientific discussion.

Let's talk about why I believe carbon dioxide warms the planet.
Let's talk about why I believe the atmospheric CO2 level has risen since the Industrial Revolution.
Let's talk about why I believe that almost every molecule of that added CO2 came from human emissions.
Let's talk about why I believe that warming represents a significant threat to the well being of human civilization.

 

[fncceo]

Let's talk about why I believe carbon dioxide warms the planet.
Let's talk about why I believe the atmospheric CO2 level has risen since the Industrial Revolution.
Let's talk about why I believe that almost every molecule of that added CO2 came from human emissions.
Let's talk about why I believe that warming represents a significant threat to the well being of human civilization.

At least you're willing to concede that these are beliefs and not facts supported with empirical data.

That represents progress.

Let's say that I accept your beliefs as plausible.

My first question would be, "What practical solutions do you propose to deal with the issue, particularly the last issue?'.

 

[Crick]

At least you're willing to concede that these are beliefs and not facts supported with empirical data.

That represents progress.

Let's say that I accept your beliefs as plausible.

My first question would be, "What practical solutions do you propose to deal with the issue, particularly the last issue?'.

I'm not the one that'll save the world and you already know what mainstream science says we need to do. We need to stop emitting CO2 as quickly as possible. EVs and I hope, eventually, hydrogen fuel cell cars for all vehicles. Solar PV and wind can tide us over till fusion can take over energy production. I'd like to see laboratory-grown meat replace livestock and a lot of replanting of forests over land no longer needed for feedstock crops. That would pretty much solve it. Ice is going to keep melting and sea levels will keep rising for another century or so but we'd be okay.

 

[fncceo]

EVs and I hope, eventually, hydrogen fuel cell cars for all vehicles.

EVs use considerably more power to charge than a standard household uses in a day. Most electricity in the US is supplied by coal and NG, fossil fuels. A large scale adoption of EVs, even if our current grid could support it, which it can't, would lead to a significant increase in fossil fuel usages, this wouldn't offset the decline in ICE usage.

Renewable energies, like wind and solar, are excellent supplements to our power grid, but not replacements. Our power grid is designed to work with on demand power generation with no provision to store power on a large scale. Generating too much or too little power to our grid will result in failures and outages.

If human based carbon production is really a concern, making the building of new and the upgrading of older fission power plants a priority would have a much greater positive effect on carbon emissions than touting EVs, which only substitutes on form of carbon emissions for another.

I have no doubt that technologies will come along in the future that will address the issue better but, we shouldn't discuss them until they are commercially viable.

 

[Crick]

EVs use considerably more power to charge than a standard household uses in a day. Most electricity in the US is supplied by coal and NG, fossil fuels.

A growing proportion is supplied by solar and wind and eventually, it will all be supplied by fusion reactors.

A large scale adoption of EVs, even if our current grid could support it, which it can't, would lead to a significant increase in fossil fuel usages, this wouldn't offset the decline in ICE usage.

Yes it would. Burning natural gas in a power plant with modern scrubbers to make electricity to drive EVs will produce less CO2 per passenger mile than would ICE vehicles burning fuel under their hoods.

Renewable energies, like wind and solar, are excellent supplements to our power grid, but not replacements. Our power grid is designed to work with on demand power generation with no provision to store power on a large scale. Generating too much or too little power to our grid will result in failures and outages.

The grid is changing.

If human based carbon production is really a concern, making the building of new and the upgrading of older fission power plants a priority would have a much greater positive effect on carbon emissions than touting EVs, which only substitutes on form of carbon emissions for another.

It's hardly an either or situation. We should build EVs and new fission plants and refurbish old ones but I'm doubtful it (the latter pair) will happen.

I have no doubt that technologies will come along in the future that will address the issue better but, we shouldn't discuss them until they are commercially viable.

 

[ding]

That's complete bullshit.

It's a fact, Jack. I just showed the data to you.

 

[ding]

I, on the other hand, think it's entirely due to people lying, making ignorant comments and posting complete bullshit. Even the smartest scientist who ever lived couldn't have a "scientific discussion" with an orangutan. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the topic.

Ice cores don't lie.

 

[ding]

That's complete bullshit.

How is it complete bullshit?

 

[Crick]

It's a fact, Jack. I just showed the data to you.

God are you STUPID. Greenland ice cores do a particularly shitty job as a proxy of global temperatures.

 

[ding]

God are you STUPID. Greenland ice cores do a particularly shitty job as a proxy of global temperatures.

They aren't intended to be proxies for global temperatures, dummy. They are intended to be proxies for the northern hemisphere temperatures which is more affected by warming than anywhere on the planet. Your global temperature reconstructions are bullshit because they don't show the variability that the northern hemisphere shows. If you want to see warming, you have to look at the northern hemisphere temperatures because that's where the most effect is seen from warming. 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades. And previous interglacials were warmer than that.

 

[ding]

God are you STUPID.

Textbook dunning effect

 

[healthmyths]

The Wikipedia article on Politifact verifies some of the assertions you've made about them but the only evidence that there might be a bias is that they print more fact checks of Republican statements than Democratic statements. Their fact checks are consistently accurate and can be trusted. The conclusion I drew from it, that Wikipedia would not voice, is the assumption that conservatives, mimicking their glorious leader, were simply lying far more often than were liberals.

Wikipedia is a leftist biased group!
Wikipedia aims to be an unbiased, neutral source. However, Sanger has said Wikipedia’s neutral point of view is “dead,” and that Wikipedia now “endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call ‘false balance’. The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.”

5 Studies Find Wikipedia Bias​

Five studies, including two from Harvard researchers, have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia:

• A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
• A 2018 analysis found top-cited news outlets on Wikipedia are mainly left-wing.
• Another analysis using AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ found that pages on American politicians cite mostly left-wing news outlets.
• American academics found conservative editors are 6 times more likely to be sanctioned in Wikipedia policy enforcement.

Is Wikipedia Biased?

Updated 1/4/2023, 8/16/22, and 6/21/2024. Originally published 3/16/21. Is Wi

www.allsides.com

 

[jc456]

Are you familiar with the term "one trick pony"?

What’s your trick?

 

[jc456]

I, on the other hand, think it's entirely due to people lying, making ignorant comments and posting complete bullshit. Even the smartest scientist who ever lived couldn't have a "scientific discussion" with an orangutan. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the topic.

Then why can’t you disprove them? That’s what science would do!!

 

[jc456]

Please explain your belief that past changes refute AGW

An entire ice sheet melt in the northern hemisphere?