Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards (no global warming hoax)

[PRB]

Rejecting lies is not the same thing as rejecting science. CO2 has reached saturation levels in the atmosphere well over a decade ago. Any further CO2 in the atmosphere will not have any effect whatsoever on the warming of the Earth.

Source and source please.

Many scientists are now thinking we are in danger of entering a new ice age due to the Sun's recent inactivity.

Who are they and what did they actually say?

If this happens will the man made global warming hoaxers apologize for their lies? I doubt it.

I would, and any honest scientist would.

Don't be a fool, there is no significant man made global warming and any further CO2 in the air will have no effects whatsoever on the Earth's temperature!

Source please.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Your definition of consensus is asking how many people's opinions agree?

I got a better one, how about look at what scientists have studied, published, had their studies scrutinized, tested, repeated?

I can show you the Consensus Project website, which says that 97% of published papers agree, global warming is real, and humans are causing it.
http://theconsensusproject.com

Your response now is what?
They didn't count right?
They're lying?
Consensus doesn't mean truth?
That still doesn't count as consensus?

I already gave you the definition.

And yes, those are all valid objections to anyone using "consensus" as evidence. It's not.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If this happens will the man made global warming hoaxers apologize for their lies? I doubt it.

I would, and any honest scientist would.

If they lie, then they're not exactly honest, are they?

 

[PRB]

Then you are making an argument from authority, positioning yourself above those you criticize when you have just as much qualification as they do.

Unlike you?

The burden of proof is on you if you are the one making the claim.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim after the scientists have already presented their case.

Considering that you have no more qualification than Joe Schmeaux, you don't get to argue from a position of authority.

And I don't need to argue from a position of authority, I can use people who actually have qualifications and studies and facts. Again, what say you? Do you have actually a counter? or are you like a kid who just says "I don't believe it" without end?

 

[PRB]

If they lie, then they're not exactly honest, are they?

If they lie, they are not honest scientists. So who are we talking about? PLEASE tell me you're not thinking about Al Gore (who isn't a scientist), or CRU (who did not lie).

 

[PRB]

I already gave you the definition.

And yes, those are all valid objections to anyone using "consensus" as evidence. It's not.

Gives me a definition of consensus that doesn't say how many people need to agree, claims you gave a definition, then says consensus is not evidence.

So you're either not interested in consensus or not interest in evidence, more likely, you're not interested in losing an argument.

 

[PRB]

And if they ignore the hazards and believe in government handouts--what does that make them?

if they ignore hazards, they're idiots, dipshits and deniers. if they believe in government handouts, they're leeches.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Unlike you?

Yes, unlike me. I am not the one claiming to know the truth. I am just questioning your claims.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim after the scientists have already presented their case.

No, that's not how burden of proof works. It's not who makes the "extraordinary" (subjective definition) claim, it's who makes the positive claim (claiming that something IS the case). You can't just shift the burden of proof away by appealing to authority. If that were true, then I would tell you that the burden of proof is on you that quantitative easing doesn't work because Ben Bernanke claims it does. Now prove he's wrong.

And I don't need to argue from a position of authority, I can use people who actually have qualifications and studies and facts. Again, what say you? Do you have actually a counter? or are you like a kid who just says "I don't believe it" without end?

You are still appealing to the authority of others. That is a logical fallacy.

When are you going to start thinking for yourself and stop depending on others to form your opinions? If we just depended on everything the "experts" say, then they could say whatever they wanted, couldn't they? How is this blind trust different from the blind trust that people put in politicians and the federal reserve chairman?

You are like the kid who unquestioningly believes everything his parents tell him.

 

[RickyJ]

Source and source please.

Use a search engine and find it yourself. Anyone that cares about the truth can find out that global warming scientists have already been caught red handed falsifying data that was used to back up recent global warming.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Gives me a definition of consensus that doesn't say how many people need to agree, claims you gave a definition, then says consensus is not evidence.

So you're either not interested in consensus or not interest in evidence, more likely, you're not interested in losing an argument.

You're assuming again. What happens when we assume?

No definition says consensus IS evidence for anything, as it shouldn't. Consensus is not evidence for anything. There is a multitude of cases where there was a clear consensus throughout history that turned out to be wrong. How do you know we won't be laughing about your consensus 40 years from now? That's why it can't be evidence. Because "evidence" is something you can observe and test. Consensus is just taking a bunch of people's word for something.

 

[PRB]

Source and source please.

Use a search engine and find it yourself. Anyone that cares about the truth can find out that global warming scientists have already been caught red handed falsifying data that was used to back up recent global warming.

no they haven't, you've been lied to by the media who made up the climategate non-scandal.

cite a source if you have something. I can accuse you of being a rapist and just say "go search yourself for evidence of my claim"? you made the claim, cite at least one good source, how's that?

 

[PRB]

You're assuming again. What happens when we assume?

No definition says consensus IS evidence for anything, as it shouldn't. Consensus is not evidence for anything.

What is evidence? Do you know?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

no they haven't, you've been lied to by the media who made up the climategate non-scandal.

cite a source if you have something. I can accuse you of being a rapist and just say "go search yourself for evidence of my claim"? you made the claim, cite at least one good source, how's that?

And he wouldn't be able to find any, would he?

 

[PRB]

Yes, unlike me. I am not the one claiming to know the truth. I am just questioning your claims.

So you admit you don't know, and can't make predictions, and just question without end. That's exactly what makes a denier rather than a skeptic.

No, that's not how burden of proof works. It's not who makes the "extraordinary" (subjective definition) claim, it's who makes the positive claim (claiming that something IS the case).

Positive or negative claim is also subjective, if not semantic. I can say you're a rapist, and you claiming you're an innocent person, could be, in those words a "positive claim". whereas me claiming you are "not innocent" is a "negative claim".

You can't just shift the burden of proof away by appealing to authority. If that were true, then I would tell you that the burden of proof is on you that quantitative easing doesn't work because Ben Bernanke claims it does. Now prove he's wrong.

And I'd gladly take on that challenge to prove Ben is wrong.

You are still appealing to the authority of others. That is a logical fallacy.

Not if the authority actually has evidence, which you don't.

When are you going to start thinking for yourself and stop depending on others to form your opinions?

I don't care for opinions, I care for facts. You are entitled to your own (opinions, not facts).

If we just depended on everything the "experts" say, then they could say whatever they wanted, couldn't they?

Only if they have evidence.

How is this blind trust different from the blind trust that people put in politicians and the federal reserve chairman?

because you demand evidence.

You are like the kid who unquestioningly believes everything his parents tell him.

Because I don't, I rely on evidence, studies, scrutiny, repeatability, predictions being vindicated or discredited...etc.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What is evidence? Do you know?

Yes. Do you? You're the one claiming that consensus is evidence, so why don't you tell me what evidence is? You're making the claim.

 

[PRB]

And he wouldn't be able to find any, would he?

find what? evidence that he's a rapist? nor can I find support for his claims. what does that prove?

 

[PRB]

Yes. Do you? You're the one claiming that consensus is evidence, so why don't you tell me what evidence is? You're making the claim.

Temperature data.
CO2 concentration.
Predictions, trends, measured results vs expectations.

Consensus is not evidence (according to you, and using your definition, I'd agree), but you're the one who started with "percieved consensus" as if actual consensus mattered. Since you admit consensus is not evidence, you won't be using Oregon Petition as your support

When people cite consensus, in terms of studies (in the case of climate change), they're not using it to mean poll of opinion (unlike you).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So you admit you don't know, and can't make predictions, and just question without end. That's exactly what makes a denier rather than a skeptic.

I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of the claims of scientists. Now it is your job to prove that I should not be skeptical. You're making the claim that I should trust them. Why should I trust them?

Positive or negative claim is also subjective, if not semantic. I can say you're a rapist, and you claiming you're an innocent person, could be, in those words a "positive claim". whereas me claiming you are "not innocent" is a "negative claim".

You're the one using semantics. If someone says I'm a rapist, I would ask them to prove it. If I then made the claim that I'm innocent, then it's just another way of saying I'm NOT a rapist, which is a negative claim. Positive claim=you are a rapist. Negative claim=No, I'm not. The positive claim requires proof, not the negative.

And I'd gladly take on that challenge to prove Ben is wrong.

Why? He's an authority. Shouldn't you just trust what the authorities tell you? He knows what he's talking about and you don't.

Not if the authority actually has evidence, which you don't.

So now we should actually look at the evidence and not just trust what the authority says? You're flip-flopping.

I don't care for opinions, I care for facts. You are entitled to your own (opinions, not facts).

Let me rephrase that: Why do you depend on the expertise of others for the truth? When are you going to THINK FOR YOURSELF!?

Only if they have evidence.

Well, then I guess we should look at the evidence and not just trust the authorities. Is that what you're saying, because it's different from what you said before.

because you demand evidence.

Exactly. If you demand evidence, then the authority doesn't mean anything because you are actually looking at the evidence and not simply trusting someone because they're an authority figure.

Because I don't, I rely on evidence, studies, scrutiny, repeatability, predictions being vindicated or discredited...etc.

Really? Because I could've sworn you were just telling me to trust what the scientists say. Now you're telling me I should actually examine the evidence myself?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

find what? evidence that he's a rapist? nor can I find support for his claims. what does that prove?

It proves that there's no evidence that he's a rapist. Hence, we should assume that he's not one.

 

[PRB]

You're assuming again. What happens when we assume?

No definition says consensus IS evidence for anything, as it shouldn't. Consensus is not evidence for anything.

So perceived consensus isn't any worse than actual consensus, according to you?

There is a multitude of cases where there was a clear consensus throughout history that turned out to be wrong. How do you know we won't be laughing about your consensus 40 years from now?

1. Were they right most of the time?
2. Were they acting on the best information available to them?
3. I am willing to be wrong, and I will laugh at people who did not use the best information available, not people who did.
4. Give an example, so we can actually test your claim.

That's why it can't be evidence. Because "evidence" is something you can observe and test. Consensus is just taking a bunch of people's word for something.

Consensus in the context of science, at least in this case, does not rely on people's words, they rely on evidence and studies, which CAN AND HAVE BEEN OBSERVED AND TESTED. Which is why it's not opinion.

You seem to be saying that if something can be wrong it can't be evidence, so evidence can't be wrong?