If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Hah. Now we've got to the part where you abandon any pretense of defending your points. Pathetic.
I've conclusively made my point: you made statements about polar bears that were complete lies, fabrications, and irrelevant red herrings.
I won't hold my breath on you to admit your errors.....or offer any shred of proof to the contrary. Carry on.
Again, you don't know what any of that shit means; you don't understand what a lie is (which explains a lot about you), nor a fabrication (which is especially bad since you're supposedly in some type of science-based field), and the only red herring you could spot has gills. You're rather pitiful.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You misunderstand. I know who he is. I've seen him in person and have listened to him speak.
Good for you. (That doesn't give you any more credibility than anyone else in this discussion.)
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
You seem to be placing some emphasis on him. And I strongly suspect it's because you are actually the one confused about who he is.
Yes, I am placing specific emphasis on who he is.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Then there's the old chestnut, "Why would scientists want to manipulate the public?" It's simple really, even if they're proven wrong about anthropomorphic climate change, and I believe they will be, they can simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, conservation and cleaning the environment was a good idea anyway". They're right, but holy shit is that dirty. It's huge business, though.
Notice any pattern of behavior here? The left's standard response to...
Banking crisis: Get the group of bankers in and ask them what they need. More tax payer hand outs to fix things? done
Auto manufacturer crisis: Get a group of auto manufacturers and ask them what they need. More money? Sure...tax payers to the rescue.
Climate "crisis": get a group of "scientists into the room and ask them what they want. More tax payer handouts? done
etc...
Of course, the "experts" and "industry insiders" consulted in each case have no vested interests here. But apparently thats alright because of the sanctimonious bs they come up with to justify it (even when the facts say otherwise).
Hah. Now we've got to the part where you abandon any pretense of defending your points. Pathetic.
I've conclusively made my point: you made statements about polar bears that were complete lies, fabrications, and irrelevant red herrings.
I won't hold my breath on you to admit your errors.....or offer any shred of proof to the contrary. Carry on.
Wasn't his point that they were doing better than we've ever recorded? Have you disputed this? All i've seen if you take issue with one of the numbers, without providing any information to affirmatively refute anything. Also, "lying" implies intent. You might think he's wrong, but "lying" implies that he is purposefully deceiving on the issue. I don't believe that to be the case. He "could be wrong" (it's on you to prove it), but "lying" is a pretty heavy accusation.
Wasn't his point that they were doing better than we've ever recorded? Have you disputed this? All i've seen if you take issue with one of the numbers, without providing any information to affirmatively refute anything. Also, "lying" implies intent. You might think he's wrong, but "lying" implies that he is purposefully deceiving on the issue. I don't believe that to be the case. He "could be wrong" (it's on you to prove it), but "lying" is a pretty heavy accusation.
Well I suppose it would mean interpreting what his "point" was, wouldn't it? What I took issue with was what he actually SAID, as relating to the topic (global warming).
Furthermore, once someone starts demonstrating a clear pattern of repeating the lies of others as though it were truth - then you don't get to stand behind the "oh I didn't understand that I was lying" excuse. It's an age-old tactic and a very, very tired one - and Shaddim has been using it since his first post.
Well I suppose it would mean interpreting what his "point" was, wouldn't it? What I took issue with was what he actually SAID, as relating to the topic (global warming).
Furthermore, once someone starts demonstrating a clear pattern of repeating the lies of others as though it were truth - then you don't get to stand behind the "oh I didn't understand that I was lying" excuse. It's an age-old tactic and a very, very tired one - and Shaddim has been using it since his first post.
Yeah, that's what I thought, you don't have a ****ing clue. That says it all, really.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What "says it all" is that you haven't once acknowledged that your statement was completely wrong - both factually, and as an implication of global warming.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well I suppose it would mean interpreting what his "point" was, wouldn't it? What I took issue with was what he actually SAID, as relating to the topic (global warming).
I mean, a distinction without a difference. You leveled a pretty harsh accusation, so cough up the real data that prove he intended to deceive.
Furthermore, once someone starts demonstrating a clear pattern of repeating the lies of others as though it were truth - then you don't get to stand behind the "oh I didn't understand that I was lying" excuse. It's an age-old tactic and a very, very tired one - and Shaddim has been using it since his first post.
I think this is a case of you just really not liking what he's saying, and either don't have the will or are unable to argue with him on the merits. It too is an age old tactic, a very very tired one (ad hominem attack). :shrug: This isn't the first time you've gotten emotional about this issue, and I'm seeing a lot more accusation and a lot less support this time around. I'm asking you to counter his citation, with your own that definitively proves his data was wrong and that he intentionally posted data he knew to be false.
What "says it all" is that you haven't once acknowledged that your statement was completely wrong - both factually, and as an implication of global warming.
Can you please prove it? All you've managed to do is raise some uncertainty with the number. You haven't refuted the overall implication in the least.
That is what says it all.
From here, it doesn't look like you're saying much at all. I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from here, but outside you casting doubt on one of the numbers I'm not seeing terribly much.
It can't. Obviously it was an attempt to get a certain reaction, a ploy, and it utterly failed. As I've already explained to him, ridicule and inflammatory rhetoric only works when your target cares about you or what you think. Since I don't, well... Much of the conflict online could be avoided if people would stop, take a deep breath, and consider the source (and its motivations).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Good read, and a great example of what happens if you dare to question the narrative.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I still find it weird that this is a political issue. If I never visited this forum I could safely assume the last few posts were from Republicans using right-wing content and the posts about climate change being man-made are from Democrats, and these assumptions would be accurate far more often than not.
I rarely get into this particular topic because it's all too often characterized as an "either-or" situation when it really is a "both-and" situation. Does the earth naturally go through climate change cycles? Obviously so. Is the latest climate change cycle being exacerbated and/or accelerated due to human activity? I think the scientific evidence has made that abundantly clear. This notion that 95+% of the world's climatologists are involved in some sort of "conspiracy" to promote a "hoax" in order to infringe upon the "liberty" of the more paranoid among us is laughable at best. It's akin to fossils being "tricks of the devil" in order to "lead the people of God astray."
I posted this before. The "scientific consensus" at the time was the earth was heading toward another ice age. The main culprit? The sun and the change in its orbit. The show features one of algore's advisors, Stephen Schneider.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm curious how the accusation of lying could even be substantiated.
I am going to assume that by this, you mean that he was simply wrong?. And therefore not lying?
I made my point earlier - in my view, repeated dissemination of misinformation without easy and basic fact-checking eventually does not allow one to hide behind the excuse "oh....I didn't know that was wrong." At some point, it goes past basic "someone who just says ignorant thing" and falls into "hey.....that person will repeat anything that's wrong, as long as he agrees with it."
That's lying.
I will also note that at no point has Shaddim ever admitted that his allusion to the historical state of polar bears was a) completely wrong from a factual perspective, and b) completely wrong from a climate change perspective. So apparently, in his mind he was neither incorrect, nor lying. But not "right"....
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Much of the conflict online could be avoided if people would stop, take a deep breath, and consider the source (and its motivations).
It is absolutely magnificent that you would dare to make this sort of statement given the cluelessness you have displayed about your "sources" in this thread.
I am going to assume that by this, you mean that he was simply wrong?. And therefore not lying?
I made my point earlier - in my view, repeated dissemination of misinformation without easy and basic fact-checking eventually does not allow one to hide behind the excuse "oh....I didn't know that was wrong." At some point, it goes past basic "someone who just says ignorant thing" and falls into "hey.....that person will repeat anything that's wrong, as long as he agrees with it."
That's lying.
I will also note that at no point has Shaddim ever admitted that his allusion to the historical state of polar bears was a) completely wrong from a factual perspective, and b) completely wrong from a climate change perspective. So apparently, in his mind he was neither incorrect, nor lying. But not "right"....
Nope, the fallacies are strong with this one, and there's more irony because you were previously lambasting me for not admitting when I was wrong. Without even knowing what a lie is, how do you even science, bruh?
It is absolutely magnificent that you would dare to make this sort of statement given the cluelessness you have displayed about your "sources" in this thread.
"A fool and his ideology are never parted." - Christopher Hitchens
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Wasn't his point that they were doing better than we've ever recorded? Have you disputed this?
Yes. You need to read better.
We only started recording with any certainty less than 50 years ago. Any concept of "doing better" is incredibly misleading.
Furthermore, that 50-year period is misleading because begins shortly before a completely unrelated event that increased the number of bears - hunting restrictions and increased environmentalism.
Finally, none of the above have anything to do with the affect of current and ongoing climate change on polar bear populations.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I mean, a distinction without a difference.
Completely and utterly wrong. If you think there is no difference, then you have serious comprehension issues.
I think this is a case of you just really not liking what he's saying, and either don't have the will or are unable to argue with him on the merits.
"On the merits" is a hilarious, hilarious statement.....given that I have shown there is zero merit to his statement regarding polar bears.
Nope, the fallacies are strong with this one, and there's more irony because you were previously lambasting me for not admitting when I was wrong. Without even knowing what a lie is, how do you even science, bruh?
"A fool and his ideology are never parted." - Christopher Hitchens
Soooooo......you won't admit that you were wrong. But you also won't admit that you were lying.
So what, exactly, is the third option here? Because you certainly weren't "right"....
You need to be a better reader.* If you're going to knock my understanding of the english language, you should make sure you understand it yourself.
We only started recording with any certainty less than 50 years ago. Any concept of "doing better" is incredibly misleading.
Ok, if that's the point you are trying to make - make it without the childish insult - might help with that whole people understanding what you're trying to say thing you were just emoting about.
Furthermore, that 50-year period is misleading because begins shortly before a completely unrelated event that increased the number of bears - hunting restrictions and increased environmentalism.
Again, this is a great point to post to cast doubt on his sources. I'd like to see any info you can provide on the specific regulations you're talking if you have em handy. Show your work.
Finally, none of the above have anything to do with the affect of current and ongoing climate change on polar bear populations.
Ok, what's your stance on it and how does that refute the conclusions in question? Use data!
Completely and utterly wrong. If you think there is no difference, then you have serious comprehension issues.
Again with the childish insults. It's really telling that this issue is an extremely emotional one for you - you aren't convincing anyone by insulting everyone who doesn't share in your views. If I'm wrong, can you please tell me how instead of telling me I'm wrong and telling me I'm stupid? It isn't a very convincing argument when the argument itself is nothing more than a blanket statement of fact with no support whatsoever followed by one or more childish insults.
"On the merits" is a hilarious, hilarious statement.....given that I have shown there is zero merit to his statement regarding polar bears.
You haven't backed up any of your statements, accusations or claims. Citations, please. You haven't "shown" anything. You've certainly expressed your view, but with a level of emotional childishness that is counter to your whole "science" framework and with absolutely no supporting evidence of your own.
First off - back to reading comprehension - you apparently missed my post on the last page regarding the issue of polar bear numbers. As in, I cited several polar bear scientists - not the nonsense that has been passed off as "sources" throughout the rest of this thread.
It is hilarious and absolutely shameful on your part - shameful - that you accuse me of not providing sources - when I have, and great ones, too - while not saying a word about the rest of the ignorant bullshit that has been posted as "sources" in the rest of this thread.
Secondly - you seem confused how this process is supposed to work. No - you're not confused - you're willfully obtuse, because I've pointed this out to you several times already. YOU need to "use your data." Every single thing I have said is confirmable by actual experts in their field by a simple Google search - I was able to tear Shaddim's stupid and thoroughly debunked polar bear red herring apart by searching "polar bear population increase" and mouse-clicking twice. But really, it should not surprise me that you can never be bothered to do so - you can't even be bothered to research your own sources, very few of whom are experts or have anything coherent to say that cannot be debunked within minutes. It's your claims that have almost no shred of expert evidence to back them up.
I'm not going to play your stupid game of willful ignorance. For whatever reason, you, Shaddim, BadKosh, Chongo et al have chosen to believe a populist argument based on willful blindness, misinformation, and ignorance - and nothing will make you change your mind. For whatever reason, none of you are able to separate the science from the policies and politics - instead of attacking the policies and politics, which could use more scrutiny, you attack the science - but in such an ignorant and laughable way that it destroys your credibility.
Still waiting on you to back that up. You simply repeating it isn't gonna make it anymore convincing.
This all dovetails perfectly with my thread on Neo-Progressivism. They really can't help it, they've so blurred the lines between ideology, politics, and religion that they've all become one to them. There can be no dissent, no speech they dislike, no ideas that aren't approved of by the collective, and if you dare try, they label you a heretic, liar, and general danger to the "public good", and you become a target for social justice.
It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yes, it's sad that you can't grasp what we've been saying. I don't believe it's "won't" grasp, you really do perceive opinions that differ from yours as blatant lies, I see it frequently with the Progressive Left these days and it seems like some type of cognitive disconnect.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well, he's wrong, otherwise there wouldn't be organized religion anymore (or 3W Feminism).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
First off - back to reading comprehension - you apparently missed my post on the last page regarding the issue of polar bear numbers. As in, I cited several polar bear scientists - not the nonsense that has been passed off as "sources" throughout the rest of this thread.
And what did your source say? In your words. I'll even quote the parts where I acknowledged exactly what your source is saying.
It is hilarious and absolutely shameful on your part - shameful - that you accuse me of not providing sources - when I have, and great ones, too - while not saying a word about the rest of the ignorant bullshit that has been posted as "sources" in the rest of this thread.
You're emoting again, and you're "holier than thou" attitude on the subject is anything but convincing.
Secondly - you seem confused how this process is supposed to work. No - you're not confused - you're willfully obtuse, because I've pointed this out to you several times already. YOU need to "use your data." Every single thing I have said is confirmable by actual experts in their field by a simple Google search
It's your argument, its not up to me to search it. You're trying to convince me here, remember? If that's not your aim, then just what are you doing here at all?
Also, can you knock off the childish insults?
- I was able to tear Shaddim's stupid and thoroughly debunked polar bear red herring apart by searching "polar bear population increase" and mouse-clicking twice.
No, you didn't. You cited one source that cast doubt on one of the numbers that Capn posted. You didn't refute anything but that one number, nor did you make an argument that polar bear populations were in fact declining. I've acknowledged that several times in my comments on the subject and asked you to fill in the giant gap of how you got from that one source, casting doubt on one number in the data, to a completely different conclusion regarding the subject at hand. I've asked you nicely with an open mind, and you've responded with some childish horseshit about how deficient I am for wanting to have a complete discussion.
But really, it should not surprise me that you can never be bothered to do so - you can't even be bothered to research your own sources, very few of whom are experts or have anything coherent to say that cannot be debunked within minutes. It's your claims that have almost no shred of expert evidence to back them up.
Again, not up to me to make your arguments for you. If you want to find the science you've got such a hard on for and share it with me, I'll listen and form my opinion from there. I'm not going to research your argument for you - you're the one making the claims so back em up.
I'm not going to play your stupid game of willful ignorance. For whatever reason, you, Shaddim, BadKosh, Chongo et al have chosen to believe a populist argument based on willful blindness, misinformation, and ignorance - and nothing will make you change your mind.
Actually, a well reasoned argument complete with proper citations might. That's severely lacking here, and you telling me to go look it up myself isn't exactly going to change my mind.
For whatever reason, none of you are able to separate the science from the policies and politics - instead of attacking the policies and politics, which could use more scrutiny, you attack the science - but in such an ignorant and laughable way that it destroys your credibility.
Straw man much?
I'm really not interested in my credibility with you - I've made no claims about the science in this thread and have asked you several times to provide your sources on yours. You respond with childish insults and emotional zeal. Somehow I'm the ignorant one here? The thing is, you have an opportunity to change my mind if you can present an argument that meets even basic high school guidelines for backing up your claims. You haven't, and so my view hasn't changed. Weird how that works huh?
This is the kind of stuff where everyone called you a tint wearing, conspiracy-believing idiot, right until it's proven true.
-t
Then they say, "Well, we were open to this possibility the whole time". As I said before, I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, but I'm not convinced that it isn't a wholly natural process that we may be slightly escalating. Did we cause it? No, probably not. Can we "fix it"? I'm not sure there's anything to "fix", the Earth is changing, and it was going to do that anyway, because our planet's climate has always been in a constant state of change. Should we ignore it all? No, and neither should we discontinue conservation measures. We should always be looking for ways to clean the planet and conserve our natural resources, including exploring cleaner energy sources. Trashing our home is not an option.
However, fear-mongering and manipulation isn't the answer, because as soon as the public finds out that you've been screwing with them, by; falsifying data, destroying evidence, and running a branch of science like the SS, where non-believers are abused and have their careers destroyed, they'll turn a jaundiced eye to conservation and lash out. It's messed up. That's why the ends don't justify the means, no matter what your intentions, because it will ultimately lead to you losing what you're fighting for, and in this case all of humanity loses.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
For whatever reason, you, Shaddim, BadKosh, Chongo et al have chosen to believe a populist argument based on willful blindness, misinformation, and ignorance - and nothing will make you change your mind. For whatever reason, none of you are able to separate the science from the policies and politics - instead of attacking the policies and politics, which could use more scrutiny, you attack the science - but in such an ignorant and laughable way that it destroys your credibility.
Sad.
SCIENCE? Don't claim to be a scientist AT ALL!
You've never addressed the moving of ground based temperature measurement sites, NOAA altering data or the IPCC getting caught altering data to match their agenda. You don't seem to be up to date with your info since back in September a math wiz noticed better results with some computer models when CO2 impact was REDUCED BY 80%. Look it up yourself. use Google as you suggested we do with your 'info'.
This all dovetails perfectly with my thread on Neo-Progressivism. They really can't help it, they've so blurred the lines between ideology, politics, and religion that they've all become one to them. There can be no dissent, no speech they dislike, no ideas that aren't approved of by the collective, and if you dare try, they label you a heretic, liar, and general danger to the "public good", and you become a target for social justice.
Your problem, as I mentioned to Snow-i, is that you can't separate the science from the politics.
What you're railing against is the politics. But for some odd reason, you choose to respond by attacking the science. Except that that science is actually Hard and requires lots of Research.....which you don't want to bother with. So you choose to instead re-post whatever half-assed argument you saw on the internet today, which......well, it just makes you look silly and out of touch.
Errrrr, I didn't. Maybe you should join Snow-i and start reading better?
You've never addressed the moving of ground based temperature measurement sites, NOAA altering data or the IPCC getting caught altering data to match their agenda.
I never addressed them because they are not issues.
You are being lied to.
You don't seem to be up to date with your info since back in September a math wiz noticed better results with some computer models when CO2 impact was REDUCED BY 80%. Look it up yourself. use Google as you suggested we do with your 'info'.
Shortcut, any thoughts? I'd legit like to hear them.
Originally Posted by turtle777
This is the kind of stuff where everyone called you a tinfoil hat wearing, conspiracy-believing idiot, right until it's proven true.
-t
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Then they say, "Well, we were open to this possibility the whole time". As I said before, I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, but I'm not convinced that it isn't a wholly natural process that we may be slightly escalating. Did we cause it? No, probably not. Can we "fix it"? I'm not sure there's anything to "fix", the Earth is changing, and it was going to do that anyway, because our planet's climate has always been in a constant state of change. Should we ignore it all? No, and neither should we discontinue conservation measures. We should always be looking for ways to clean the planet and conserve our natural resources, including exploring cleaner energy sources. Trashing our home is not an option.
However, fear-mongering and manipulation isn't the answer, because as soon as the public finds out that you've been screwing with them, by; falsifying data, destroying evidence, and running a branch of science like the SS, where non-believers are abused and have their careers destroyed, they'll turn a jaundiced eye to conservation and lash out. It's messed up. That's why the ends don't justify the means, no matter what your intentions, because it will ultimately lead to you losing what you're fighting for, and in this case all of humanity loses.
Well Shaddim's insane rantings aside, the answer is: I don't know. If this is a new and revelatory study just released, it will need some time for analysis and peer response.
But - to find out more on the paper - I googled the guy. And it seems that he's spent a half-decade or more on the anti-climate change circuit, is a key member of some European anti-global warming think tank, and for 3 or 4 years has been giving talks about how NASA is fraudulently changing its temperature data.
So, immediately before the huge climate change summit that's currently underway, this retired but noted anti-GW skeptic apparently releases a ground-breaking scientific study that in one fell swoop destroys the results of an entire scientific discipline? AND seems to contradict what previous climate-independent institutions have found upon reviewing the available data?
I mean......let's see what the response will be. But man, on the face of it, this seems so way too good to be true that I'm honestly surprised someone I would normally characterize as a skeptical and rational thinker like turtle would seem so excited over it.
Your problem, as I mentioned to Snow-i, is that you can't separate the science from the politics.
Yeah, go ahead and say what I just said about you, very original. Climate science is now an ideology and corrupted by politics, then wielded by the Far Left as a cudgel. That's how some scientists have no problem lying and distorting data, it's for "the greater good" and "the ends justify the means", and you believing I look "silly and out of touch" doesn't mean shit to me (in fact, I'd probably worry if you didn't).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well Shaddim's insane rantings aside, the answer is: I don't know. If this is a new and revelatory study just released, it will need some time for analysis and peer response.
But - to find out more on the paper - I googled the guy. And it seems that he's spent a half-decade or more on the anti-climate change circuit, is a key member of some European anti-global warming think tank, and for 3 or 4 years has been giving talks about how NASA is fraudulently changing its temperature data.
Another use of the ad hominem fallacy...
I mean......let's see what the response will be. But man, on the face of it, this seems so way too good to be true that I'm honestly surprised someone I would normally characterize as a skeptical and rational thinker like turtle would seem so excited over it.
Has it already reached the point to where you try and use flattery to get out of your mess? I guess so.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm honestly surprised someone I would normally characterize as a skeptical and rational thinker like turtle would seem so excited over it.
In this case, you might have pegged me in the wrong corner.
I'm firmly planted in the tinfoil hat wearing, conspiracy believing camp that MOST of today's climate change is NOT caused by man directly.
My main reasons to be suspicious are:
* climate change has become a "scientific religion", and exhibits many signs of a believe system, rather than fact-based discovery
* BIG MONEY is interested in using this to further their agenda
* much data is inconclusive and tortured to arrive at "proof"
* it's being used to achieve political goals
It's your argument, its not up to me to search it.
I think this is where the reading comprehension comes into play.
It's not my argument. (Quite literally; I didn't make that claim. I just pointed out that Shaddim's numbers were based on ignorance. But I'll play along.)
If you are referring to the argument that climate change is destroying the polar bear habitat, and their numbers will inevitably decline - that's a scientific argument made by polar bear scientists/experts.
If you are trying to refute that argument, then you get to provide proof. You don't get to say "the experts are wrong!"........and then require whoever disagrees to prove what the experts are saying.
Do you not understand this basic logic issue?
You cited one source that cast doubt on one of the numbers that Capn posted.
I mean.....you say "cast doubt" - the source is a compendium of several of the world's foremost polar bear scientists who say that the number was a "wild ass guess"
You didn't refute anything but that one number, nor did you make an argument that polar bear populations were in fact declining.
.
Exactly.
I've acknowledged that several times in my comments on the subject and asked you to fill in the giant gap of how you got from that one source, casting doubt on one number in the data, to a completely different conclusion regarding the subject at hand.
What completely different conclusion? I've lost you.
I've asked you nicely with an open mind
An open mind? You've literally taken the exact same stance on climate change for years and years, even as the science continues to develop.
The thing is, you have an opportunity to change my mind if you can present an argument that meets even basic high school guidelines for backing up your claims. You haven't, and so my view hasn't changed. Weird how that works huh?
I would say that it's certainly weird that hundreds to thousands of scientific papers, and even the concurring conclusions of independent research experts specifically trying to search for holes in the science, are unable to convince you...
Yeah, go ahead and say what I just said about you, very original. Climate science is now an ideology and corrupted by politics, then wielded by the Far Left as a cudgel. That's how some scientists have no problem lying and distorting data, it's for "the greater good" and "the ends justify the means", and you believing I look "silly and out of touch" doesn't mean shit to me (in fact, I'd probably worry if you didn't).
You seem unaware that I'm a conservative voter. Someone who believes in limited government intrusion and limited yet effective regulation. And during my lifetime I've only ever voted for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Do you see enemies everywhere? Is the Far Left in every nook and cranny, trying to undermine? Yeah.....no that's just you being paranoid and insane.
So yeah......I'm conservative, yet more educated about climate change than most people. So you see why I get annoyed when people like you make such ignorant statements and those of us who know better get tarred with the same brush.
I think this is where the reading comprehension comes into play.
It's not my argument. (Quite literally; I didn't make that claim. I just pointed out that Shaddim's numbers were based on ignorance. But I'll play along.)
If you are referring to the argument that climate change is destroying the polar bear habitat, and their numbers will inevitably decline - that's a scientific argument made by polar bear scientists/experts.
But they're not here making those arguments. You are. If they originally made that argument, you need to cite them. That is the point of citations and using citations to make your argument.
If you are trying to refute that argument, then you get to provide proof.
Which argument? Yours? I haven't tried to refute it - I've asked you to provide data to back up your claims. You're saying I need to find data to prove you wrong if I want to know what your argument is founded upon?
You don't get to say "the experts are wrong!"........and then require whoever disagrees to prove what the experts are saying.
I didn't say the experts are wrong. I said "Show me where the experts are saying what you're saying". You are not an expert, and none of these experts are here to say anything, so provide a citation(s) for the argument you're making in someone else's name.
Do you not understand this basic logic issue?
You haven't posted any data or evidence for which to base the logic upon.
I mean.....you say "cast doubt" - the source is a compendium of several of the world's foremost polar bear scientists who say that the number was a "wild ass guess"
Yeah, so you've refuted that one number in the data set. Now how do you get from "that one number may be wrong, since it's just a WAG" to "Polar bear populations are definitely in trouble because of AGW"??? There's a mac truck gap that you've jumped over, and you won't provide any sources to fill it in. Instead, you claim that all the experts are saying so (which experts, where have they said it?) and that it's up to me to go search for the data to back up the argument you're making here today.
.
Exactly.
But then you also say:
"But in any event, my point was that the lies and misinformation being repeated in this thread are just that. I have already given my opinion on the original post and will point out that I am completely unsurprised that those points apply equally well to this new topic."
What completely different conclusion? I've lost you.
Well if Capn' is lying, like you say he is, show me where the polar bear populations are either staying steady or declining? I mean, he can't be lying and right at the same time correct?
An open mind? You've literally taken the exact same stance on climate change for years and years, even as the science continues to develop.
Skepticism on religion being faked as science? Yeah. My stance is that the models aren't good enough, that the net impact on the earth would be negative should we wreck our economies and turn out to be false (because of the slowdown in technological and scientific advance), and that we ought to base policy decisions on more than rudimentary climate models that are extrapolating some scary numbers.
I would say that it's certainly weird that hundreds to thousands of scientific papers, and even the concurring conclusions of independent research experts specifically trying to search for holes in the science, are unable to convince you...
The scientific process is exactly that - a process. 40 years ago these same scientists were all sorts of sure we were entering another ice age, so that idea that these guys are somehow unimpeachable is laughable, especially given that their existence hinges solely upon AGW being true. I can be convinced, Shortcut, but given this thread as an example it's really hard to change your opinion when those trying to change it are hurling childish insults left and right, failing to provide citations for their claims, and then telling me to go find backup for those arguments myself.
If you're going to knock my understanding of the english language, you should make sure you understand it yourself. 
Top