Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

This has been so toxic that *I'm* not even reading the posts in this thread.
Errr.

Apart from the lawn mowing troll adding to much of the toxicity,
Nothing much to see, people.

I hope this thread isn't going to be locked, though.
I can't see myself ever going back to PPR.
Talk about "TOXIC!". <EEP!>

And while I respect beneficii and consider her one of the most credible "progressives" here,
I never get an answer to my reasonable questions to clarify her position.
WTF?

A skeptic ask questions to seek out the facts, the logic.
Yes, I am a moderate conservative skeptic,
But that doesn't negate the underlying desire to seek out the Truth.

If a position can't be intelligently, rationally defended,
It is hardly a position built on reason, surely.
Appeal to authority, anyone?

Disappointing.

Some time back I laid a challenge which you and your skunk friend have failed to deliver. Find me evidence that contradicts widely supported scientific model that climate change/temperature rise/sea level rise/pollution/mass extinction is anthropogenic.

Viable scientific evidence should come from
1. peer reviewed and scholarly journals
2. published by tenured academic staff

The closest you have come to is scrape one article by a retired scientist (no longer tenured) who claims water vapour contributes to global warming except he doesn't discount the role of CO2 and that infact in order for water vapour to be produced you need CO2 in the first place.

You then source information from a dubious blog site called "real science" (a term that you keep repeating over and over again as if this is sufficient to back up your crackpot theories). But then I find the author of the aforetmentioned blog site believes "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Ironically this is the antethesis of real science.

But feel free to keep posting links if you like (I'm not stopping you). Although aren't you the one trying to distract everyone with pages and pages of lame cartoons? (ok one or two are funny).

I admit I like some pseudoscientific stuff as well....UFOs, paranormal etc it's great fun.

Actually that's not how occams razor works, the simplest explanation is most likely the answer so the in this scenario the burden of proof is on you since your theories haven't got scientific support

Occams razor? WTF?
The simplest explanation so far is that the claimant is unable to prove the claim.
The topic under discussion is whether or not there is sufficient (or any) verifiable evidence supporting the theory of CAGW to justify consideration/implementation of global social, political, and economic changes as recommended by the UN IPCC.

CAGW supporters claim:
A) there is a "climate crisis"
B) that (A) justifies the imposition of their "recommendations"

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

It seems like most climate catastrophe claimants happen to also be of a socialist bent.

Professor of Philosophy at Deakin University, Patrick Stokes, here in Melbourne argues why climate skeptics are not entitled to baseless opinion and why it's farcical to use occams razor as an argument.
An opinion is a view or judgement about something. So, by definition, an opinion has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty or subjectivity, and using it as a defense only works in certain situations…. There’s no way you can argue with me if I were of the opinion that ginger tastes horrible. You might actually like ginger’s taste, but my preference against it is beyond question. But you have all the rights to argue with me if I were of the opinion that global warming is a hoax. After all, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to show that there is very little uncertainty in the “opinion” that global warming is happening.

The overwhelming evidence today supports the fact that the climate is changing, precariously so, to our detriment. The further argument that mankind is causing this precipitous change also cannot be seriously faulted; alternatively, this theory is less likely to be false, than to be true. Indeed, manmade climate change is not only the most likely explanation for what’s happening, it’s the simplest solution to explain everything; it requires the least jumping through hoops, and the least convoluted rationals.

Manmade climate change satisfies Occam’s razor as the simplest solution to the question of what’s causing Earth’s climate to change like no other explanation can. So even if you want to argue a contrarian theory, it’s just plain foolish to do so.

https://responsiblebusiness.co/the-simp ... 0e9040505e

I wonder what Patrick Stokes' political views are.

That logically challenged piece of pseudointellectual tripe posted above should leave little doubt.

In order to obtain tenure in an Australian university and get promoted to professor you would need to have won international grants and published widely in peer reviewed scholarly journals in your field. You would be scrutinised mercilessly by peers for any bias or unscientific thinking.

A reasonable person would accept Professor Stokes' application of occam's razor (one of the fundemental principles of science) to climate change over a random group of trolls on (and I am using your words here Ezra) "an obscure online autism board"

Typical cyberdad improvisation evasion and deflection.

Your source for this "little gem" is anonymous (what a surprise) but claims to have an advanced degree himself? I also enjoyed reading some of the entertaining comments posted on his blog suggesting his motives/ulterior motives.

Technically he is using his own (unsubstantiated) "advanced degree" to appeal to readers of his blog which means he is actually appealing to authority-fallacy, I suspect he is unable to see the irony (and neither have you)

There's nothing original about that meme. It's a widely held notion. And you often appeal to an article you googled up to do your arguing for you.

I knew a professor who believed, wholeheartedly, that the world was created in 4004 BC.