Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
24 days ago.
by Kendall78
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

Based on past experience, I predict you’ll use the shotgun approach next.

My posts revealed the absurdity of your demands for proof, so you’ll bury my posts under a bunch of short posts and plagiarizing someone else.

Posted 313 days ago.

harryanderson

“Another ‘true believer’ without a shred of PROOF just itching to empower Government.”

There you go again.

By calling me a “true believer,” you are using an ad hominem argument (attacking an opponent rather than his or her position).

By claiming I’m “just itching to empower Government” (sic), you are using the straw man argument (misrepresenting an opponent’s position to discredit her or him).

I figured you’d go there. Again.

Posted 313 days ago.

harryanderson

“To be proven, something needs to be demonstrable and repeatable.”

That’s absurd. If that were true, we could never prove something that could only happen once. Suppose Clyde killed Moira. According to your definition, we couldn’t prove it because Moira could not be killed again. Sure, you could have Clyde kill Truman, but contrarians like you could always argue that it wasn’t the same because Truman isn’t Moira.

You’d better stick to the childish insults, Tiredofit. It’s the only way you can win. If you step into the field of rational discourse, you lose every time.

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you accept scientific evidence?

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you accept the scientific evidence?

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

And to make your case, you refer to Galileo observing evidence to prove something. Yet you refuse to observe the many pieces of evidence that have been offered to you.

So if you won’t consider the evidence, how can you prove something?

This is too rich.

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

BINGO. Read what you’ve posted. You’ve admitted you won’t accept scientific evidence.

Here’s what you wrote: “Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. “

I knew that. Unlike myth, I’m good at math. I knew you’d have to come around to mathematical proof. You had no choice (except to change your mind, which you’re incapable of doing on this issue)

Since the climate is measurable and observable instead of abstract, climate change can’t be proven, according to you. Therefore, by your own definitions, you are demanding we do the impossible.

And that makes your position absurd.

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

"The statement 1+1=2 is a true statement and will always remain true because the definitions of 1 and 2 never change."

Yea but you aint one to acknowledge true statements. Like the ability of co2 to trap heat and that we have emitted probably trillions of tons of the stuff.

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

Hey Tiredofit.

"First the fluffer Munster says

"And by the way , you just proved my point , stewards are appointed by the union committee NOT ELECTED""

Whats a fluffer?

Maybe thats a different one. The one here is as pious as the pope.LOL!

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

"SO you don't have any"

Don't have any what?

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

There can be no proof without evidence. if you won't accept evidence, it's impossible to prove anything to you.

So I ask the question again. Are you now willing to accept scientific evidence?

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

Oh I wasn't lying. Since I figured you like to say crap to get a reaction out of people I figured I do the same.

Just admit you aren't on here to truthfully debate this issue.

If you did...well this would look a lot different.

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

"A demonstrable link, linear cause and effect, direct correlation."

That's not the way the rest of the world defines proof. According to dictionary dot com, proof is "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth" or "anything serving as such evidence."

In law, its "evidence having probative weight."

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

"We've tried to have a nice rational discussion with Tiredofit to no avail."

Of course. That's why he subverts rational discussion. The scientific debate, which involves reason, is "of enormous frustration" to him, so he must avoid it.

And his ego won't allow him to avoid it by staying away, so he turns the discussion into something like a Saturday night brawl in Anchorage when the Palin clan arrives in a stretch Hummer,

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

"The fact that you would GO THERE,says a lot about you."

Words are one thing action is another. I haven't done anything. But you on the other hand have with your rabid accusations and attempts at character assassination.

In all honesty I would never go there.

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

Harry thats good advice. But I know full well that Tiredofits whole point is to a rise out of people.

I know thats his game now because of a couple of questions he wouldn't answer. His silence spoke for him.

I can discuss any issue in a civil manner.

But when people like him roam these threads. No civil discussion can take place.

We've tried to have a nice rational discussion with Tiredofit to no avail.

From the first moment he laid eyes on our posts. His mind was made up about us and he responded accordingly.

But when he made fun of me because of my lack of math skills when I spoke about it. That was personal....

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

You've been asked to define what you mean by proof.

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

That last statement makes no sense. Since you avoid providing an answer to my simple question, I'll take it to mean that you're not willing to accept scientific evidence.

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

Did I state that you was one yet? Umm no I did not.

I simply asked if you would like me to ...call you...a child molester in lieu of you stating that I am a socialist.

You know exchange one baseless accusation for another.

You chuck a rock at me I'll chuck it right back. Might even grab a bigger one too.

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

"Harry, you cannot have a scientific discussion without provable scientific FACT."

Are you ready to accept scientific evidence? Yes or no?

Posted 314 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or