D
dvdjs
Guest
And that is not a fallacy at all. The logical fallacy is assert that the lack of credibility is sufficient not only for scepticism, but for the rejection of the evidence, if any, presented.
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
ROFL, you continue your ad hominems and ignore the arguments given.
Why do you bother posting if you have no comprehension of the topic?
You clearly can’t refute anything.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle on Mann hiding materials and methods due to it allegedly being “proprietary”. (The other alternative is, it COULD have been dishonest. But we won’t know by this “Mann” who has repeatedly falsely publicly claimed he won a nobel prize. . . .
I am going to use that same discretion applied to the names of these people for reasons I already outlined (fired, hassled, etc. Also grant money loss, etc.).
Nothing wrong with that.
Leaf . . .
But the conclusion I will draw from your actions will serve as a reminder to me to blow off your criticisms here.
Why?
Because your differing responses in principle, suggest to me that your motivation is political. Not principled.
Sometimes people are even unaware of themselves acting in such a political fashion.
By the way. Nothing wrong with political motivations. We all do some of that.
I’ll reconsider my rejection of your criticism, if you link to those posts. That will suggest (to me anyway) it is a principled argument.
In the meantime, I’m just not going to take your criticism of the OP seriously (at least without new reasons) as you seem to have “selective application” of your complaint. Selective application, at least to me.
OK.
I am going to use that same discretion applied to the names of these people for reasons I already outlined (fired, hassled, etc. Also grant money loss, etc.).
Nothing wrong with that.
Leaf . . .
You don’t.
But the conclusion I will draw from your actions will serve as a reminder to me to blow off your criticisms here.
Why?
Because your differing responses in principle, suggest to me that your motivation is political. Not principled.
Sometimes people are even unaware of themselves acting in such a political fashion.
By the way. Nothing wrong with political motivations. We all do some of that.
I’ll reconsider my rejection of your criticism, if you link to those posts. That will suggest (to me anyway) it is a principled argument.
In the meantime, I’m just not going to take your criticism of the OP seriously (at least without new reasons) as you seem to have “selective application” of your complaint. Selective application, at least to me.
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Just out of curiosity, do we have that list of names yet?
M
Maximus1
Guest
What do they call paying 500 scientists to write a pro fossil fuel report denying climate change.
For the fossil fuel industry, they call it A DROP IN THE BUCKET
For the fossil fuel industry, they call it A DROP IN THE BUCKET
C
Cathoholic
Guest
drcube . . . .
The list of the Ambassadors are out. (As I said. The scientists almost certainly do not want to risk families being intimidated, loss of employment, grant money witholding, etc.)
Just out of curiosity, would it matter to you?
The list of the Ambassadors are out. (As I said. The scientists almost certainly do not want to risk families being intimidated, loss of employment, grant money witholding, etc.)
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Maximus1 . . .
Your post is a microcosmic tacit testimony to what I have said would occur to these scientists if they openly state this.
Personal attacks to that community of scientists (and their Ambassadors for that matter as we have seen right here too).
The arguments are there.
You can deal with them right?
Probably the same thing they called New York City being underwater by 2015 when it wasn’t.
Fake global warming alarmism.
Why not deal with the issues they raised Maximus1?
Your post is a microcosmic tacit testimony to what I have said would occur to these scientists if they openly state this.
Personal attacks to that community of scientists (and their Ambassadors for that matter as we have seen right here too).
The arguments are there.
You can deal with them right?
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
- The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed
- The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
- The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
- Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools.
- CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth.
- There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent
- There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
Probably the same thing they called New York City being underwater by 2015 when it wasn’t.
Fake global warming alarmism.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
D
drcube
Guest
Yep, definitely curious to know who signed it. @LeafByNiggle is right. This ‘petition’ is useless unless we know the names of the scientists.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Londoner . . . .
Londoner. Do you think Michael Mann has ever won a Nobel Prize?
If not, have you leveled any criticism to him here on CAF for making such bogus claims?
If so, would you mind linking to just one of those criticisms against Michael Mann please?
We have certainly discussed him enough for you to have that opportunity.
I went through your gripes about Lord Monckton of Brenchley.
They are mere ad hominems and irrelevancies.
His diploma wasn’t enough of a qualifier for you despite all this experience. So what?
A mere ad hominem (A.H.)
The IPCC has a German Banker on its commission. When I initially heard this I thought the same thing. How does training in banking qualify you for climate suggestions?
Then I thought about tangential issues associated with this. (The alarmists have told us for years how we need a well-rounded cross section representing the issues. Now you seem to be rejecting that notion.)
A.H.
Why preoccupy yourself with other people being sexual deviants and their critics when it is irrelevant as far as global warming is concerned? At least on a superficial natural level.
Irrelevant.
Lot’s of ad hominems and irrelevancies. Almost no substance to any of your complaints so far.
I’m glad you said that.
Londoner. Do you think Michael Mann has ever won a Nobel Prize?
If not, have you leveled any criticism to him here on CAF for making such bogus claims?
If so, would you mind linking to just one of those criticisms against Michael Mann please?
We have certainly discussed him enough for you to have that opportunity.
I went through your gripes about Lord Monckton of Brenchley.
They are mere ad hominems and irrelevancies.
His diploma wasn’t enough of a qualifier for you despite all this experience. So what?
A mere ad hominem (A.H.)
A.H.
Implicit A.H.
The IPCC has a German Banker on its commission. When I initially heard this I thought the same thing. How does training in banking qualify you for climate suggestions?
Then I thought about tangential issues associated with this. (The alarmists have told us for years how we need a well-rounded cross section representing the issues. Now you seem to be rejecting that notion.)
A.H. Then you shouldn’t have brought it up.
A.H.
A.H.
Irrelevant to global warming and a mere A.H.
As a journalist he might be in a good position to pass on scientific information. You doubting his credibility here is irrelevant. He obviously has had some successes to get where he is (yet you haven’t mentioned any).
A.H.
This one may be germane. Give me a balanced exposition/rebuttal and I will consider it. Right now I’ll put it in the undecided catagory. (I’m not going to bother with Google. Too frustrating with their new-fangled politics baked-in to the searches - which in my opinion, has led to an overall degrading of Google. Even for non-political issues. You do it if you want to back up what you are saying.)
You keep bringing his criticism of sexual deviancy into play. AIDS too even.
Why preoccupy yourself with other people being sexual deviants and their critics when it is irrelevant as far as global warming is concerned? At least on a superficial natural level.
He’d probably chalk it up to investigative journalism.
Irrelevant.
Lot’s of ad hominems and irrelevancies. Almost no substance to any of your complaints so far.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
drcube . . . .
Some of them ARE scientists.
So now it should at least be of some value to you.
Hopefully enough that you will begin to address the issues they raised.
You know. We are 30 posts into this thread and virtually none of the global warming advocates, have addressed the issues raised in the OP which I just re-stated (here).
Why not deal with the issues?
Did you look at the Ambassador list?
Some of them ARE scientists.
So now it should at least be of some value to you.
Hopefully enough that you will begin to address the issues they raised.
You know. We are 30 posts into this thread and virtually none of the global warming advocates, have addressed the issues raised in the OP which I just re-stated (here).
Why not deal with the issues?
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Yes, I did. I want to see the full list. It said there were 500 scientists and all I can see is one (Mann). I didn’t examine the full ambassador list. I am mostly interested in which North Americans signed on.
Not really except that there doesn’t seem to be 500 scientists if I can’t know their names.
Nope.
Don’t care. I want to see the names of the scientists before I spend energy on this.
Because my time is valuable and I won’t waste it if I cannot know who is making the claims.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
drcube . . . .
Your argument morphed from wanting “that list of names” to (after I gave you several “names” by link) now necessitating a “full list”.
All this tells me is you do not want to address the issues.
Look. I’m with ya there in principle.
If my guys were saying things like “the end of snow” or the polar ice cap is falling off the table, or Paris will be The Sahara by 2040, or that New York City will be underwater by 2016, I certainly would not want to discuss the issues either.
Especially the first bullet-point reference I made here:
Just what I figured you’d say.
Your argument morphed from wanting “that list of names” to (after I gave you several “names” by link) now necessitating a “full list”.
All this tells me is you do not want to address the issues.
Look. I’m with ya there in principle.
If my guys were saying things like “the end of snow” or the polar ice cap is falling off the table, or Paris will be The Sahara by 2040, or that New York City will be underwater by 2016, I certainly would not want to discuss the issues either.
Especially the first bullet-point reference I made here:
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Umm, what is the difference between a ‘list of names’ and a ‘full list’?
Anyway, when you get that list of names (read: full list of names), let me know.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
drcube . . .
Anyway, when you start dealing with the issues (read: issues explicitly outlined here on this thread and have been brought up a multitude of times by MANY [posters here and named scientists in many threads] in a host of various threads here on CAF) let me know.
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Yeah, I am a little disappointed that this wasn’t the list of names. Do me a favor, reply to this post when you have that list, but not before? That way, I know it’s the list of names. Thanks.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
For everybody else . . .
Is there anybody here who wonders WHY the Obamas, who have close ties to much of the global warming industrial complex (and presumably close proximity to the best advice), just spent 15 million dollars on a Martha’s Vineyard home, when it could be underwater any day now?
You DO think it will be underwater any day or week now right?
www.newsbusters.org
Is there anybody here who wonders WHY the Obamas, who have close ties to much of the global warming industrial complex (and presumably close proximity to the best advice), just spent 15 million dollars on a Martha’s Vineyard home, when it could be underwater any day now?
You DO think it will be underwater any day or week now right?
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. At least those were the wildly-inaccurate predictions made by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that...
www.newsbusters.org
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
My position on climate is not altered by exaggeration claims. It isn’t altered by an element of scientists who disagree with the mainstream.
The threshold to action with climate is triggered by the potential of catastrophe. In my estimation the evidence we do see and preponderance of consensus in the community is sufficient to warrant action.
Frankly I am not motivated by outlyer science, accurate as it might be ultimately. We cannot afford to gamble with catastrophe. Interesting as it might be.
The threshold to action with climate is triggered by the potential of catastrophe. In my estimation the evidence we do see and preponderance of consensus in the community is sufficient to warrant action.
Frankly I am not motivated by outlyer science, accurate as it might be ultimately. We cannot afford to gamble with catastrophe. Interesting as it might be.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Maximus1 . . .
But now is YOUR chance.
AOC has access to many scientific consultants.
What do you say?
Will the world (at least as we know it) end in twelve years (or at least the irretrievable beginning of the end? Or whatever other variation you want)?
Well Maximus1?
And where is the whole of “the mainstream” scientists NOW on this? (Yes there are a few exceptions.)
I’ll tell you where they are.
They are afraid of the same types of things these 500+ scientists are afraid of.
We are not talking 20 or 30 years ago.
We are talking about right now! (With this latest “doozie”)
The left is by their very nature, totalitarian. Deep down inside even those on the left know this.
.
.
That’s just it Maximus1. There were virtually no scientists that rebutted those claims. Oh there was a couple but you had to look hard (I did).
But now is YOUR chance.
AOC has access to many scientific consultants.
What do you say?
Will the world (at least as we know it) end in twelve years (or at least the irretrievable beginning of the end? Or whatever other variation you want)?
Well Maximus1?
And where is the whole of “the mainstream” scientists NOW on this? (Yes there are a few exceptions.)
I’ll tell you where they are.
They are afraid of the same types of things these 500+ scientists are afraid of.
We are not talking 20 or 30 years ago.
We are talking about right now! (With this latest “doozie”)
The left is by their very nature, totalitarian. Deep down inside even those on the left know this.
.
.
'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says
The youngest woman ever elected to Congress said climate change is her generation's World War II.
www.usatoday.com
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Totalitarian?
Viewing Climate change as a partisan tribal issue is the zenith of irrational.
Viewing Climate change as a partisan tribal issue is the zenith of irrational.
- Status