Greenpeace Founder to Senate: "Man-Made Global Warming Unproven"

[PaulConventionWV]

it is if
1) it's an extraordinary claim
2) it's a claim which will affect policy
By the way, there's a difference between "I don't believe global warming is caused by CO2" and "I don't care if it is, I just don't want carbon taxes"

No, the burden of proof is the person making the positive claim. The people who claim that it is happening can't immediately shift the debate and demand that the deniers prove that they're wrong. They first have to prove that they're right before anyone can debunk them.

It doesn't matter if it affects policy, and no, "extraordinary claim" doesn't enter into it, at least not the way you want to use it. Some person doesn't bow down to the scientific establishment and all of a sudden denial is an "extraordinary claim"? I don't think so. Saying that CO2 is going to warm the planet into a crisis, I would say, is a pretty extraordinary claim. Let's focus on keeping the burden of proof where it is REALLY supposed to be... on the people making the positive claim, not the ones making the negative claim. Capiche?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

lower temperature, if global, and accounted for with La Nina/El Nino cycles, would be proof against global warming
drought vs rain
snow vs no snow
hurricane vs no hurricane
such comparisons would be a matter of whether the abnormalities are predicted, and whether the locality normally has such conditions.

Again, what do non-warmists predict?

They don't have to predict anything. They simply don't believe all of the extraordinary claims being made by the warmists. By the way, the temperature has been decreasing for the past 15 years, and this year looks to continue the trend, so far.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

This is what the anti-GMO crowd doesn't care about:

"It's his own fault, he should have just eaten more vegetables"

Appeal to emotion doesn't make you right. It just makes you a pathetic tear-jerker.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Hey angela, I'm still waiting for you to answer the dozen or so questions that I directed at you and you deliberately avoided. I even gave you your precious ground rules for the most recent questions, and you still refuse to answer even one.

 

[juleswin]

"Anecdotal evidence is real, says some guy on the internet."

You haven't seen the pictures of starving children in Africa? Seriously?

Pictures of starving refugees is just that, pictures of starving refugees displaced from their lands due to war. GMO or no GMO, you will continue to see pictures like that coming from these war torn regions.


Just saying

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Pictures of starving refugees is just that, pictures of starving refugees displaced from their lands due to war. GMO or no GMO, you will continue to see pictures like that coming from these war torn regions.


Just saying

Yay! Reason and logic trump "science" whores!

 

[oyarde]

The only thing I found rice useful for was making liquor and baiting ducks .

 

[oyarde]

Um, I lived many years in Asia, and my brother has lived many years in Africa. He is an anthropologist.

You should have your Brother on this board .....

 

[PRB]

No, the burden of proof is the person making the positive claim.

so the person who says gravity doesn't exist is making the negative claim and has no burden of proof? nonsense. burden of proof is on the person making the unestablished, less supported, less understood, new and extraordinary claim (which, sometimes often can be worded into a new positive claim).

 

[PRB]

By the way, the temperature has been decreasing for the past 15 years, and this year looks to continue the trend, so far.

No, it hasn't.

You got that from these kinds of new stories
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013...ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

they arbitrarily pick 15-17 years to find a less than upward trend and claim "see? there's no upward trend here", then media reporters spin that into "warming has stopped since 15 years ago" and later on "it's been cooling for 15 or more years!".

 

[angelatc]

Pictures of starving refugees is just that, pictures of starving refugees displaced from their lands due to war. GMO or no GMO, you will continue to see pictures like that coming from these war torn regions.


Just saying

If anybody would actually click the links I post, they'd see that this is addressed. They are not claiming that this will end starvation across the entire globe. They're only saying it is one of many tools to be used the immediate problem of malnutrition.

While Golden Rice is an exciting development, it is important to keep in mind that malnutrition is to a great extent rooted in political, economic and cultural issues that will not be solved by a technical fix. Yet Golden Rice offers people in developing countries a valuable and affordable choice in the fight against the scourge of malnutrition.

 

[fletcher]

so the person who says gravity doesn't exist is making the negative claim and has no burden of proof? nonsense. burden of proof is on the person making the unestablished, less supported, less understood, new and extraordinary claim (which, sometimes often can be worded into a new positive claim).

No one is claiming the climate doesn't exist, so your analogy is wrong. The climate changes, and has always changed. It is the warmists' claim that climate change, as well as basically everything weather related (snow, no snow, rain, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, the sunset, etc.) is due to humans. It is up to them to prove their claim.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

so the person who says gravity doesn't exist is making the negative claim and has no burden of proof? nonsense. burden of proof is on the person making the unestablished, less supported, less understood, new and extraordinary claim (which, sometimes often can be worded into a new positive claim).

No. Think about it, would you listen to someone who simply said "gravity doesn't exist"? Of course not. You might, however, listen, if they replaced it with another interesting theory which they, then, would have to prove.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. We can't just equate any theory we want with theories that we're sure about because that's false equivocation. If that were the case, anybody could just tell people to f*** off because their theory is "like gravity."

That's the way it's been done for a long time, and it's not about to change because you think GW is pretty much like the theory of gravity. It's not, and far from it.

In any case, GW is FAR, FAR, FAR from being an established theory like gravity, so you can't just rush it into the safe zone just yet.

THEY are the ones claiming that something is about to change dramatically on our planet, not the people who say maybe this is all part of a normal range of temperatures that the planet goes through. They're saying there's a drastic departure from the norm. Surely you can see now where the burden of proof lies even according to your own standards... right?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If anybody would actually click the links I post, they'd see that this is addressed. They are not claiming that this will end starvation across the entire globe. They're only saying it is one of many tools to be used the immediate problem of malnutrition.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions way back on page 2.

Why don't you want to answer the questions?

 

[PRB]

No one is claiming the climate doesn't exist, so your analogy is wrong. The climate changes, and has always changed.

just like nobody claims the Holocaust didn't happen, they just use the word to mean something most don't. Sorry, if you use a phrase to mean something other than what's conventionally agreed and understood, you're not affirming it.

It is the warmists' claim that climate change, as well as basically everything weather related (snow, no snow, rain, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, the sunset, etc.) is due to humans. It is up to them to prove their claim.

the claims are these:
there's a recent increase in overall global temperatures (since the past 50 years)
the primary cause is human activity (specifically CO2)
all other candidates for causing global temperature increase have failed to account for them, as well as fail to predict patterns
it's the warmists who make the best predictions for extreme weather patterns, droughts, floods, hurricanes, snows. Not meteorologists and skeptics who just ask questions. If you have a person with better predictions than warmists, let me know.

 

[PRB]

No. Think about it, would you listen to someone who simply said "gravity doesn't exist"? Of course not. You might, however, listen, if they replaced it with another interesting theory which they, then, would have to prove.

So I shouldn't take global warming skeptics seriously, since they can't and haven't given an alternative theory for which they're willing to test, is that right?

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. We can't just equate any theory we want with theories that we're sure about because that's false equivocation. If that were the case, anybody could just tell people to f*** off because their theory is "like gravity."

the claim "PaulConventionWV is a non-criminal and law abiding citizen" is that a positive claim?

That's the way it's been done for a long time, and it's not about to change because you think GW is pretty much like the theory of gravity. It's not, and far from it.

In any case, GW is FAR, FAR, FAR from being an established theory like gravity, so you can't just rush it into the safe zone just yet.

THEY are the ones claiming that something is about to change dramatically on our planet, not the people who say maybe this is all part of a normal range of temperatures that the planet goes through. They're saying there's a drastic departure from the norm. Surely you can see now where the burden of proof lies even according to your own standards... right?

agreed, the question "is this temperature change within or beyond the norm" is a simple one which can be settled if 2 people simply agree on what is the norm. if the norm was defined as -100F to 500F, then you're right, we're totally in the norm and not departed at all.

 

[juleswin]

No, it hasn't.

You got that from these kinds of new stories
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013...ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

they arbitrarily pick 15-17 years to find a less than upward trend and claim "see? there's no upward trend here", then media reporters spin that into "warming has stopped since 15 years ago" and later on "it's been cooling for 15 or more years!".

While you're at it, please tell the alarmist scientist to stop making statements like "the last decade was the hottest decade in recorded history". If 17 yr trends are insufficient then, so is a 10 yr trend.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So I shouldn't take global warming skeptics seriously, since they can't and haven't given an alternative theory for which they're willing to test, is that right?

No, stop obfuscating the issue. I think you know very well that the burden of proof has always lied in the hands of those making the positive claims. Don't run from it. Face it. You know this to be true.

You're still assuming that GW is just as good as gravity, which we all know it's not. Stop pretending and face the facts.

the claim "PaulConventionWV is a non-criminal and law abiding citizen" is that a positive claim?

No, that's the normal presumption. You're turning a negative statement into a positive statement via sentence structure and passing it off as something out of the ordinary, which it's not.

agreed, the question "is this temperature change within or beyond the norm" is a simple one which can be settled if 2 people simply agree on what is the norm. if the norm was defined as -100F to 500F, then you're right, we're totally in the norm and not departed at all.

Right, but the irony here is that GW proponents are pretending this demonstrably ambiguous question is already settled just as well as gravity. Let's stop making false equivocation, then we can get to the real issue.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I guarantee you won't see angelatc in this thread anymore. She has simply refused to answer any of my questions even though I've met all of her terms for engaging in a logical discussion. She can't handle the heat and she should be known as a coward henceforth.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Here are a few of the questions that angelatc has refused to answer since way back on page 2:

Way to avoid the question. Is "different evidence" a better way to phrase it? Perhaps I should just say "dissent." Getting warmer?

Or does the scientific method make dissent irrelevant, too?

How do you know the models don't work? Are you a scientist?

Have you actually tested any of these things you claim to believe?

I have utilized several means of contact to get her to answer these questions and she has refused to take part in any further discussion, even knowing that I had complied with all of her conditions and let her know multiple times that I was seeking an answer.

Angelatc shall be known henceforth as a coward who is running from a reasonable discussion. She did a typical cop-out by claiming I wouldn't set the ground rules for one particular question, which I have since done multiple times and she still refuses to answer any of the questions. She's afraid of the truth and cares more about saving face than finding the truth. Is she a paid mole? The type of cognitive dissonance she regularly takes part in would behoove us to believe that something is off, whatever it is. In any case, the poster known as angelatc should no longer be trusted.

If you see angelatc post in any other threads, I would encourage you to point out her record of intellectual dishonesty and avoidance of a discussion so that she is no longer heeded as a reasonable voice anywhere on these fora.