|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2007 : 21:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
But we've been over this before in more than one thread. (Indeed, it seems like it comes up in every global warming thread you introduce!) The concept isn't hard, though. If I said there were a world wide scientific consensus that smoking tobacco is harmful to your health, would you disagree with that statement if Phillip-Morris put forward a scientist (or bank-rolled an entire study group) who said otherwise?
|
An interesting analogy, Cune since one of the Geek Coutnerpoint podcasts that I linked to (the Naming Names one) points out that several of the MMGW "skeptics" have previously been harmful effects of tobacco denialists. They will deny any scientific consenus for money and probably for notoriety as well. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 22:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
But we've been over this before in more than one thread. (Indeed, it seems like it comes up in every global warming thread you introduce!) The concept isn't hard, though. If I said there were a world wide scientific consensus that smoking tobacco is harmful to your health, would you disagree with that statement if Phillip-Morris put forward a scientist (or bank-rolled an entire study group) who said otherwise?
|
An interesting analogy, Cune since one of the Geek Coutnerpoint podcasts that I linked to (the Naming Names one) points out that several of the MMGW "skeptics" have previously been harmful effects of tobacco denialists. They will deny any scientific consenus for money and probably for notoriety as well.
|
You do understand that this is a fallacious argument.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 22:15:32 [Permalink]
|
It is your continous appeals to false authority that is fallzcious.
Pointing out the dubious track record of your authorities is not an ad hominem fallacy.
Did you listen to any of the podcasts that I linked to? |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 22:21:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
It is your continous appeals to false authority that is fallzcious.
Pointing out the dubious track record of your authorities is not an ad hominem fallacy.
Did you listen to any of the podcasts that I linked to?
|
I have not, yet I do intend too. Thanks for the links.
Still, if an argument is: ---The presenter is like these nose pickers, therefore the argument is unworthy.
This is a fallacious argument.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 00:54:59 [Permalink]
|
| It doesn't matter that the original studies were conducted by scientists or that they were peer reviewed.---H. Humbert |
Jerome, I see you've cherry picked the above out of context quote from earlier in this thread and stuck it in your signature. It's not like we actually need more evidence that you are an obnoxious, dissembling troll y'know.
Seriously, your deceptions are transparent and serve only to illustrate your own mendacity. If you can't or won't deal honestly with the people here then kindly take your shit elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 02:47:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What if find amusing is that "world wide scientific consensus" is stated as the proof of MMGW, yet the term is refused a definition. A powerful statement such as this that is not defined is intentional obfuscation of reality.
|
But we've been over this before in more than one thread. (Indeed, it seems like it comes up in every global warming thread you introduce!) The concept isn't hard, though. If I said there were a world wide scientific consensus that smoking tobacco is harmful to your health, would you disagree with that statement if Phillip-Morris put forward a scientist (or bank-rolled an entire study group) who said otherwise?
|
An interesting analogy, Cune since one of the Geek Coutnerpoint podcasts that I linked to (the Naming Names one) points out that several of the MMGW "skeptics" have previously been harmful effects of tobacco denialists. They will deny any scientific consenus for money and probably for notoriety as well.
|
You do understand that this is a fallacious argument. |
No, Explain. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2007 : 03:47:05 [Permalink]
|
Just for the hell of it, here's a little more on the Arctic ice pack: Science Daily — Large areas of the Arctic sea-ice are only one metre thick this year, equating to an approximate 50 percent thinning as compared to the year 2001. These are the initial results from the latest Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association lead expedition to the North Polar Sea.
<snip>
“The ice cover in the North Polar Sea is dwindling, the ocean and the atmosphere are becoming steadily warmer, the ocean currents are changing” said chief scientist Dr Ursula Schauer, from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research part of the Helmholtz community, when commenting on the latest results from the current expedition. She is currently in the Arctic, underway with 50 Scientists from Germany, Russia, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, the USA, Switzerland, Japan, France and China, where they are investigating ocean and sea-ice conditions.
|
Isn't it remarkable that those who run their mouths the most do the least research?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 05:40:45 [Permalink]
|
Jerome realizing that his argument is lost wrote:
Are the meanings of words not relevant? |
After a word has been defined in a conversation, it is irrelevant and obfuscating to redefined over and over.
Jerome realizing that his argument is lost wrote:
Obfuscation would be the opposite of defining the meanings of words. |
Obfuscation is not the opposite of "defining the meanings of words".
Jerome realizing that his argument is lost wrote:
What is your definition of "WWSC" concerning "MMGW"?
Do you know the definition of the term you are defending? |
I define them in the same terms that you do Jerome. As evidence I use a line from your opening, "New scientific data refutes AGAIN the world wide scientific consensus of man made global warming." Of course I am making the dangerous assumption that you are cognizant of what you are writing.
Now if we could cut through all of this bullshit that seems to spew from every orifice you possess, and point out again that YOU ARE WRONG, the data does not refute the world wide scientific consensus of man made global warming.
What would be accurate to say is that; the interpretation of the data is sufficient for a small group of people to conclude that there is no man made global warming.
This has nothing to do with the WWSC (to use your term).
Get it, Jerome?
No?, well how surprising....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 08:09:45 [Permalink]
|
I have re-analyzed a bunch of scientific studies written by really, really smart people which were published in peer reviewed journals and have found, by reading between the lines, that scientists really believe that Bigfoot exists and he is a purple ghost. Do not ask me how I arrived at this conclusion, since my methods are unimportant. The point is that "the data" overturns the media-hyped notion that scientists are in agreement that Bigfoot doesn't exist and isn't really a purple ghost.
Now, some of you may doubt me. You might say the words I bolded are merely a distraction, that they are in fact unimportant to the issue of how I achieved my conclusions. That it doesn't matter if the original papers were peer reviewed if all I've done is ignore the conclusions of those papers, or twisted the papers to fit some silly preconceived hypothesis.
But not Jerome. He alone is intelligent enough to know that simply seeing the words "peer reviewed" and "scientists" in a paragraph is enough to validate whatever nonsense comes after. Those words function like an automatic rubber stamp which slams down and slaps "true" on any premise they appear in proximity to. All praise Jerome for seeing clearly where others could not, and for turning my ill-founded skepticism into his new signature. Clearly I was wrong to doubt the power of those words.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 10:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Looking back over Jerome's last bunch of posts here:Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Are the meanings of words not relevant?
Obfuscation would be the opposite of defining the meanings of words. Your statements are contradictory.
What is your definition of "WWSC" concerning "MMGW"?
With out an answer your are obfuscating.
Do you know the definition of the term you are defending?
Zero defense of your argument.
You can not even define your argument.
Just more insults, and a link you provided before.
Child.
Do you have the ability to write a response without an insult?
Dodo head.
You do understand that this is a fallacious argument.
I have not, yet I do intend too. Thanks for the links.
Still, if an argument is: ---The presenter is like these nose pickers, therefore the argument is unworthy.
This is a fallacious argument. |
I don't see a single word relevant to the hypothesis that the data in the Hudson List studies contradicts the "world wide scientific consensus" that he mentioned. (But notice the frantic attempts to shift the burden of proof, as well as distract from his claim.)
I'll take this as an indication that Jerome was completely full of it when he made that assertion, and so therefore was at least as clueless when posting the OP for this thread. Once again, it looks like his reactionary nature has caused him to drink the Republican Kool-Aid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 11:09:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
New scientific data refutes AGAIN the world wide scientific consensus of man made global warming.
| A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. |
It is refreshing to see the reality of science debunk the political propaganda. AGAIN!
|
Hi Jerome - I'm sort of new here, but I've been lurking for a while and I've been following this thread as it has developed. I'm confused by your OP. You referenced "new scientific data." What new data? It seems that the study you are referring to simply took data that already existed and re-interpreted it to mean what these people wanted it to mean. The article states that not "all of" these scientists are "global warming skeptics." What does that mean, exactly? How many of them are? And how did the ones who aren't "global warming skeptics" interpret the data? Because the article seems to get very tricksy with how it says things... It certainly isn't very clear about exactly what this data is and what methods they've used to make their conclusions. They just sort of... say it and declare it to be true. I find it rather hard to believe that this "PR" company has successfully re-interpreted the data that many scientists interpreted another way.
And I have to say that it's awfully dishonest and creepy of you to quote H. Humbert out of context just for the sake of being snarky. That's not very polite of you.
Just my two cents. |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 20:40:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by emsby
Hi Jerome - I'm sort of new here, but I've been lurking for a while and I've been following this thread as it has developed. I'm confused by your OP. You referenced "new scientific data." What new data? It seems that the study you are referring to simply took data that already existed and re-interpreted it to mean what these people wanted it to mean. The article states that not "all of" these scientists are "global warming skeptics." What does that mean, exactly? How many of them are? And how did the ones who aren't "global warming skeptics" interpret the data? Because the article seems to get very tricksy with how it says things... It certainly isn't very clear about exactly what this data is and what methods they've used to make their conclusions. They just sort of... say it and declare it to be true. I find it rather hard to believe that this "PR" company has successfully re-interpreted the data that many scientists interpreted another way.
And I have to say that it's awfully dishonest and creepy of you to quote H. Humbert out of context just for the sake of being snarky. That's not very polite of you.
Just my two cents.
|
Welcome, and thanks for your thoughts.
I am a bit of a pariah around here. Not that I do not understand your point; but my snarkiness is consistently eclipsed by vitriol. It is something of a comfortable relationship for both sides.
This talk has been occurring over the course of several months. I presented at the beginning the fact that the "world wide scientific consensus" consists of 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. Surely you see this as politics and not science with a 10 to 1 governmental influence. This is evidenced from the IPCC documents and the words of one of the 30 scientist involved in the "consensus".
This topic was just another example of science that does not conform to the "WWSC" about "MMGW".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 20:45:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I presented at the beginning the fact that the "world wide scientific consensus" consists of 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. |
And you were shown (and refused to acknowledge) that that "fact" is wildly wrong. You just keep on repeating the Republican lies, Jerome, digging yourself deeper into your hole.| This topic was just another example of science that does not conform to the "WWSC" about "MMGW". |
You have yet to demonstrate that there is any science in the Hudson List claims at all, as you assert there is. The Hudson List is a propaganda piece, and nothing more. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 20:49:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you were shown (and refused to acknowledge) that that "fact" is wildly wrong. You just keep on repeating the Republican lies, Jerome, digging yourself deeper into your hole. |
Which fallacy of argument is it when one tries to present a false association?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 20:56:09 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, you should include a link in your signature back to this thread. That way people can read my words in context and realize you're an idiot.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
