Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowButSteady
No. You don't need to do anything. However, that isn't much of a debating tactic.
|
This isn't about debate for me, it isn't about tactics.
The simple, irrefutable, reality-dictated fact is that your side needs to make several irrefutable cases:
-- CO2 emissions are increasing temperature.
-- That increase is outside norms.
-- That it's outside norms in detrimental ways.
-- That the actions responsible for this increase constitute a violation of the rights of others.
Seems like you folks skipped at least four crucial thresholds, jumping to legislation, regulation, and lies.
Quote:
|
So, now you are claiming that those who don't agree with your pseudo-science are not even human?
|
Your band-aids are getting cheaper and cheaper.
It's not a matter of agreeing with me. It's that by no known epistemological standard has MMGW been established.
And, no, the animals behind ClimateGate aren't "human". (Sorry you relate to them in some primal way.)
Quote:
|
And the case has been made.
|
Not by any known standard, it hasn't. If it had you could post that argument on a site that would generate enough cash to save a whole army of amebas and the like.
And besides: proving CO2 increases temperature still doesn't get you to the regulatory state you're after. You still have to show rights violations.
Quote:
|
Aren't you the one who keeps saying this isn't a popularity contest? In any case, the vast majority of scientists in this and closely related fields agree that the global climate is getting warmer and that the cause is most likely anthropogenic.
|
I never made the shift you need to continue posting nonsense.
There are armies of scientists out there that have serious issues with this absurd hypothesis. (Imagine how many more would surface if it wasn't for the pressures unleashed by the perverted processes we've become aware of.)
And as has already been explained to you, listing a slew of scientific societies that have gone along with this hypothesis for sad reasons does not mean that their membership agrees with that position. (Think unions.)
Quote:
I've never cozied up to an politician, and the only other scientist I've cozied up to in the past twenty-plus years is my wife. 
|
Dodge.
Quote:
|
And, as I said earlier, the case has already been made.
|
It most certainly has not. You just keep repeating the same nonsense as if repetition, authoritative tone, your spouse's profession., etc., could ever lend credence to this easily refuted set of lies and exaggerations.
Quote:
|
No scientific argument is "unassailable".
|
Nonsense. You're either even more ignorant that you've let on, or you're hopping others that may read this are. And even if this claim were true, it would say more about the state of science than anything else. Specifically to GW, though, we need far, far more than ~ a trillion dollars has generated before we move on to showing that the activities responsible for MMGW actually violate rights. As I've said before, it may very well be that we are warming the planet, and that there's nothing to be done about it by a government of a free nation. (No rights violation, no punitive actio, no laws against.)
Quote:
|
However, I've seen nothing on this board that gets even close to seriously challenging our current understanding of global climate change.
|
I agree, in that the best minds in the field do not think it's happening. And even if they did, we'd still have to show that government has the right to do something about it. Neither has been demonstrated past the reference to lying "authority" stage.
And I love the implication that you're falling back on some sort of verified threshold of proof to make this proclamation. You've got nothing. And that nothing has forced you to take all kinds of ridiculous approaches in trying to "win" a debate on an issue that has yet to pass any serious threshold..
Quote:
|
To whom are you addressing this last line?
|
You.
Quote:
|
And to what "facts" are you referring?
|
That the case for hasn't crossed any established epistemological standards, that ClimateGate proves that there's so much dishonesty on the affirmative that it goes a long way to proving that, at best, these "scientists" just "feel" it's happening but can't prove it, etc.
You get more and more boring with every pseudo-rebuttal -- you're out of ammo, out of new twists, out of basic fallacies to fall back on. (Good thing, as I hate being reminded how little Latin I've actually committed to memory whenever I go hunting for the name of your latest, standard error.)
Connect with Facebook
