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

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

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

That was not the question. It is one question, not two questions. I will repeat it:

What of the people who ignore the hazards of living near a river AND believe that government should compensate them when those hazards occur?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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).

If the media tells me a consensus and I believe them, then I perceive that there is a consensus, that most scientists agree on something. However, that does not necessarily mean that most scientists actually do agree. That is what I meant by perceived consensus. And no, I have no intention of bringing up Oregon Petition. I am just questioning your grounds for arguing from authority when you have no such authority.

 

[PRB]

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

what happens when we assume?

So I can't find support for the claims he just made

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!

, therefore we should assume he's making it up?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

PRB,

I will repeat the other question that you did not answer. Here is our exchange and my question to you:

because unless I can predict who much water, rain I get, it can be dangerous, and it only has to happen once.

Whose responsibility is that?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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



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.



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?

Just because someone else has observed and tested something, that doesn't mean you should just forego the responsibility to determine for yourself what is true.

 

[PRB]

If the media tells me a consensus and I believe them, then I perceive that there is a consensus, that most scientists agree on something.

But that isn't and shouldn't be enough. I look at WHY scientists believe what they do, and WHY they conclude what they do.

I don't just assume scientists are right or are liars. What they look at matters, how they conclude matters, they are subject to scrutinity, counter arguments, and their claims are open for testing. So, have you an actual challenge to any of these climate scientist claims? Or just don't want to look?

However, that does not necessarily mean that most scientists actually do agree.

And if they "agreed" by mere opinion, it wouldn't matter. Agreement on opinion is for politicians and voters, an honest examination of evidence and agreement based on knowing all evidence available is what makes science a better way to make conclusions than almost any other method.

That is what I meant by perceived consensus. And no, I have no intention of bringing up Oregon Petition. I am just questioning your grounds for arguing from authority when you have no such authority.

I am not arguing as an authority, just as an honest person who doesn't dismiss things based on my preconcieved agenda.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

what happens when we assume?

So I can't find support for the claims he just made



, therefore we should assume he's making it up?

Would you rather we assume that he is one? There is such a thing as a benefit of the doubt, you know. This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. If we assume he's not a rapist, that simply means we're giving him the benefit of the doubt. If we can't find evidence for the positive claim that he IS a rapist, then we continue to believe that he is not one. It's the same for global warming. If we can't verify the claims of scientists that global warming is happening, then we should not believe the scientists because we have not looked at the evidence.

You claim to believe in evidence, and yet you constantly tell people to go with the flow and accept the scientific consensus. I'm telling you that you can't simply assume that evidence is on your side just because the scientists are on your side.

 

[PRB]

Just because someone else has observed and tested something, that doesn't mean you should just forego the responsibility to determine for yourself what is true.

Indeed it doesn't. So again, are you actually going to put this "I know science and logic more than you" to a good use in this argument? Do you actually have a scientific beef to bring up? Or are you just blind doubting and denying whatever you like? Are you holding yourself to the same standard you hold to me and people you allegedly disagree with?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But that isn't and shouldn't be enough. I look at WHY scientists believe what they do, and WHY they conclude what they do.

I don't just assume scientists are right or are liars. What they look at matters, how they conclude matters, they are subject to scrutinity, counter arguments, and their claims are open for testing. So, have you an actual challenge to any of these climate scientist claims? Or just don't want to look?



And if they "agreed" by mere opinion, it wouldn't matter. Agreement on opinion is for politicians and voters, an honest examination of evidence and agreement based on knowing all evidence available is what makes science a better way to make conclusions than almost any other method.



I am not arguing as an authority, just as an honest person who doesn't dismiss things based on my preconcieved agenda.

I'm just telling you what I meant by perceived consensus: The perception that there is a consensus. Is that, or is that not, what a perceived consensus is?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Indeed it doesn't. So again, are you actually going to put this "I know science and logic more than you" to a good use in this argument? Do you actually have a scientific beef to bring up? Or are you just blind doubting and denying whatever you like? Are you holding yourself to the same standard you hold to me and people you allegedly disagree with?

No. I'm questioning your claims that you believe in science. It appears to me that you believe in mass hysteria. I am doubting what you say with good reason. It is logically unsound.

I am making no positive claims, so I don't need to hold myself to any standard. I'm just reminding you of the standards. If I started arguing from authority like you, then I would need to apply the standards to myself, but that's not what I'm doing.

 

[PRB]

Would you rather we assume that he is one? There is such a thing as a benefit of the doubt, you know. This really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.

He made the claim that scientists lied, and CO2 has already satured, more won't change much. Am I going to give him the benefit of doubt?

If we assume he's not a rapist, that simply means we're giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Why is the opposite not true?

If we can't find evidence for the positive claim that he IS a rapist, then we continue to believe that he is not one. It's the same for global warming. If we can't verify the claims of scientists that global warming is happening

Luckily we can. Despite many who are ignorant and in denial, clouded by political agenda.

, then we should not believe the scientists because we have not looked at the evidence.

I welcome you to look at evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

You claim to believe in evidence, and yet you constantly tell people to go with the flow and accept the scientific consensus.

No, I tell people to challenge scientists if you actually have a challenge. Asking stupid questions and not knowing what you're asking isn't one way to do it.

I'm telling you that you can't simply assume that evidence is on your side just because the scientists are on your side.

Luckily I don't need to assume, I know enough to say I have evidence on my side and am happily willing to consider I am wrong, I am challenging anybody to show any contrary evidence. So contrary to your delusion, I am not close minded and decided without possibility of changing my mind. I am open as long as there's qualified evidence and honest studies.

 

[PRB]

No. I'm questioning your claims that you believe in science.

The better wording is I trust evidence and the scientific method, and I trust people's conclusions if they've honestly applied the method. Not by virtue of being a scientist.

It appears to me that you believe in mass hysteria. I am doubting what you say with good reason. It is logically unsound.

Why do you say I believe in mass hysteria?

I am making no positive claims, so I don't need to hold myself to any standard.

LOL, yeah you did, here

Yes, really. It's all about what they want you to believe... and it's pretty likely that what they want you to believe is not based on reality.

Luckily you then admitted you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm just reminding you of the standards. If I started arguing from authority like you, then I would need to apply the standards to myself, but that's not what I'm doing.

I don't argue from authority. I argue using evidence, so if you want to challenge me, I ask you do the same. If you want to challenge Al Gore, use politics, if you want to challenge IPCC, bring better scientists. If you want to challenge the 97% consensus conclusion, use evidence.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He made the claim that scientists lied, and CO2 has already satured, more won't change much. Am I going to give him the benefit of doubt?

No, but you are also not going to blindly trust the scientists because you have no evidence that what they say bears any resemblance to reality.

Why is the opposite not true?

What is the opposite?

Luckily we can. Despite many who are ignorant and in denial, clouded by political agenda.

If we can, then we should, but we should NOT just trust what the scientists say because they are scientists. Are you starting to grasp what I am saying?

I welcome you to look at evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

I'm talking about trusting the scientists and your fallacious claim that evidence is on your side when you have yet to present any evidence. You can't argue from authority if you are not a scientist. You can't assume that the evidence is on your side (your words) if you have just as much qualification to examine it as the regular Joe Schmeaux who opposes you.

No, I tell people to challenge scientists if you actually have a challenge. Asking stupid questions and not knowing what you're asking isn't one way to do it.

And how do you determine if a question is stupid or not? By doing science? Do you refer back to the scientists again? You're going in circles.

Luckily I don't need to assume, I know enough to say I have evidence on my side and am happily willing to consider I am wrong, I am challenging anybody to show any contrary evidence. So contrary to your delusion, I am not close minded and decided without possibility of changing my mind. I am open as long as there's qualified evidence and honest studies.

You already said on the last page that you assume the evidence is on your side. You have not presented any evidence, AND you shifted the burden of proof away from yourself in the process. Lest we forget all of these little tid bits, YOU are the one making the claim and YOU have to support it with evidence. You cannot assume that the evidence is on your side.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The better wording is I trust evidence and the scientific method, and I trust people's conclusions if they've honestly applied the method. Not by virtue of being a scientist.

How do you know if they've honestly applied the method? Were you in the lab?

Why do you say I believe in mass hysteria?

Because you said we should accept what the scientists say, and what they are saying is "PANIC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!"

LOL, yeah you did, here

I just added my opinion in there. I didn't state it as fact. I just said what I believe is likely.

Luckily you then admitted you don't know what you're talking about.

And so should you. You're not a scientist, and you don't have the upper hand in this debate until you actually use science, which you have not done yet.

I don't argue from authority. I argue using evidence, so if you want to challenge me, I ask you do the same. If you want to challenge Al Gore, use politics, if you want to challenge IPCC, bring better scientists. If you want to challenge the 97% consensus conclusion, use evidence.

Yes, you do. You already said you assume that the evidence is on your side back at the beginning of our conversation. You say we should accept what the scientists say. That's appealing to authority and using the authority of others as a basis from which to give yourself the upper hand in the debate. If you argue using evidence, then you would have used some by now, but you haven't done so in the whole thread yet.

 

[PRB]

No, but you are also not going to blindly trust the scientists

Correct.

because you have no evidence that what they say bears any resemblance to reality.

Luckily I do. Because temperature data doesn't lie.

What is the opposite?

That assuming he's a rapist is giving him benefit of doubt.

If we can, then we should, but we should NOT just trust what the scientists say because they are scientists. Are you starting to grasp what I am saying?

No disagreement here. So again, are you going to put this scientific thinking to an actual argument? Or JAQing?

I'm talking about trusting the scientists and your fallacious claim that evidence is on your side when you have yet to present any evidence.

here you go.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

You can't argue from authority if you are not a scientist. You can't assume that the evidence is on your side (your words) if you have just as much qualification to examine it as the regular Joe Schmeaux who opposes you.

Oh wait, which one is it? Can I examine evidence? Or can't I? Decide already. One says I can't use evidence, one says we must trust somebody else (and tell me who that is, thanks)

And how do you determine if a question is stupid or not? By doing science? Do you refer back to the scientists again? You're going in circles.

By looking at whether a person even bothered to scrape the surface and hear facts. There's a difference between hearing an argument and disagreeing, vs not hearing it at all.

You already said on the last page that you assume the evidence is on your side. You have not presented any evidence, AND you shifted the burden of proof away from yourself in the process.

here's some. Sorry, didn't know you asked, I thought you already knew I was wrong or something.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Lest we forget all of these little tid bits, YOU are the one making the claim and YOU have to support it with evidence. You cannot assume that the evidence is on your side.

I don't need to assume. I actually know, and I'm willing to look at any contrary evidence. Let me know when you have any, thanks.

 

[PRB]

How do you know if they've honestly applied the method? Were you in the lab?

Because data collected is available for you to reproduce the results. Sorry, but climate trends are not done in "wet labs" but computer labs. Either there's a conspiracy for all scientists to lie and be wrong, or some will stand up to prove another wrong.

Because you said we should accept what the scientists say, and what they are saying is "PANIC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!"

Didn't say that. And what scientist said that?

I just added my opinion in there. I didn't state it as fact. I just said what I believe is likely.

And so should you. You're not a scientist, and you don't have the upper hand in this debate until you actually use science, which you have not done yet.

But I post evidence. And welcome you to too.

If you argue using evidence, then you would have used some by now, but you haven't done so in the whole thread yet.

I apologize, I have now. And here it is again.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

So, next?

That evidence isn't good enough?
That evidence isn't sufficient or complete?
That evidence isn't honest and reliable?

Would be nice if you have something better as a counter, such as
This evidence says you're wrong
This evidence is missing, please include
This evidence is more reliable, and I can tell you why

Ball's in your court now.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Luckily I do. Because temperature data doesn't lie.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Prove that temperature data is reliable. Don't just assume that temperature data doesn't lie. Examine it and tell me why you believe the temperature data is accurate. Keep in mind we're measuring the average temperature of the entire earth with mere thousands of measurements. First of all, why should I trust those measurements as accurate?

That assuming he's a rapist is giving him benefit of doubt.

It wouldn't really be a benefit, then, would it?

No disagreement here. So again, are you going to put this scientific thinking to an actual argument? Or JAQing?

I'm waiting for you to make your argument. You haven't made a scientific argument in the whole thread.

here you go.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

That link is a bunch of people talking about what the scientists believe. I thought we established that you should use actual science and not just trust the scientists?

Oh wait, which one is it? Can I examine evidence? Or can't I? Decide already. One says I can't use evidence, one says we must trust somebody else (and tell me who that is, thanks)

You can't claim to be using evidence when you are actually referring to scientists' beliefs. You CAN use evidence when you actually carry out the scientific method of observing, testing, and repeating, YOURSELF.

By looking at whether a person even bothered to scrape the surface and hear facts. There's a difference between hearing an argument and disagreeing, vs not hearing it at all.

How do you look at that? By determining if what they say is legitimate? Do you ask them?

here's some. Sorry, didn't know you asked, I thought you already knew I was wrong or something.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

That's not evidence. That's a link to people talking about what scientists have published.

I don't need to assume. I actually know, and I'm willing to look at any contrary evidence. Let me know when you have any, thanks.

You just said you already know. How can you know without assuming? Have you gone out there and collected the data and did the calculations from the temperature measurements yourself? How do you know? Are you wearing a lab coat as we speak and doing arduous calculations based on real, tangible measuring devices and evidence from ice cores, satellites, the atmospheric gas, etc. You don't know unless you've done it. Otherwise, you're just taking the word of the scientists.

 

[PRB]

I'm waiting for you to make your argument. You haven't made a scientific argument in the whole thread.

I haven't made an argument or I just repeat the scientist's allegedly alarmist argument?

 

[PRB]

Are you wearing a lab coat as we speak and doing arduous calculations based on real, tangible measuring devices and evidence from ice cores, satellites, the atmospheric gas, etc. You don't know unless you've done it. Otherwise, you're just taking the word of the scientists.

Not that if I did, you'd believe me, since you obviously don't trust anybody if you didn't do it yourself.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

PRB,

Let's just say--for the sake of argument--that global warming is true. Should governments do anything about it? If so, what should they do?