Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Randi and Global Warming
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

Landrew
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  07:14:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Landrew a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Dave's position is far more Skeptical as he has brought up many valid points, none of which you have responded to.
I'm not sure what good that would do, he merely invalidates anything which doesn't support his conclusions. I don't challenge his "valid points" because I'm not a climate scientist, I doubt any of us are; I'm merely not convinced to his degree, which I'm sure is a more scientific attitude than being convinced, especially when there is so much controversy about these "facts."

God bless women, for without them there would be no cookies.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  07:18:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

I've made my case, and it's simply that I don't share all your certitudes about global warming.
The question is: why not? What is wrong with the evidence collected and presented by climate scientists? What is wrong with their logic and conclusions, based upon that evidence?
Which is the more skeptical position; having conclusions about a complex phenomenon or not having them?
Doubt in the face of solid evidence is not skepticism, it is denialism.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  07:23:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

I'm not sure what good that would do, he merely invalidates anything which doesn't support his conclusions.
Thank you for agreeing that what you've said is, in fact, invalid.
I don't challenge his "valid points" because I'm not a climate scientist, I doubt any of us are; I'm merely not convinced to his degree, which I'm sure is a more scientific attitude than being convinced, especially when there is so much controversy about these "facts."
There is no controversy: there is a "manufactroversy" created by a relatively small number of people who often aren't climate scientists and who are often funded by fossil-fuel companies.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  12:34:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Landrew:

Which is the more skeptical position; having conclusions about a complex phenomenon or not having them?


Your form of "skepticism" is rather blind if you think there is a general answer to this question.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  13:22:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Landrew

Check out the Maunder minimum.
I have, and so have the experts. Whether there's a causal connection between sunspot activity and Earth temperatures is unclear. Concluding that they are causally connected, which is what is required to make your argument, is unsupported by evidence and thus unskeptical.
Excuse me, but I'm not entirely convinced that we know as much about this phenomenon as some of us claim.
Then why do you keep repeating the "Maunder Minimum" mantra?[quote]It seems like basic intellectual honesty to me; how's that for skepticism?
Intellectual honesty seems to me to demand that we accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (regardless of its source) and that we accept that sunspot activity has not been shown to be a cause of global temperature shifts (is there an 11-year correlation?).
I've made my case, and it's simply that I don't share all your certitudes about global warming.

Which is the more skeptical position; having conclusions about a complex phenomenon or not having them?

Your failure to comprehend the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change is the problem here. Applied skepticism doesn't allow you to be willfully ignorant.

You can educate yourself by clicking this link and reading. Start with the SPM (summary for policy makers) if you lack a working knowledge of physical sciences.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  14:00:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey, Landrew: does your skepticism extend to evolution, which is at least as complex an issue as AGW and has a much, much larger manufactroversy?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Landrew
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  16:36:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Landrew a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Hey, Landrew: does your skepticism extend to evolution, which is at least as complex an issue as AGW and has a much, much larger manufactroversy?

Some things I doubt, and some things I accept, and who can say for sure my accuracy quotient?

But one thing I know, is that the longer you spend being skeptical of a conclusion, the better informed that conclusion is apt to be.

God bless women, for without them there would be no cookies.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  17:09:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

Originally posted by Dave W.

Hey, Landrew: does your skepticism extend to evolution, which is at least as complex an issue as AGW and has a much, much larger manufactroversy?

Some things I doubt, and some things I accept, and who can say for sure my accuracy quotient?

But one thing I know, is that the longer you spend being skeptical of a conclusion, the better informed that conclusion is apt to be.

Or you could inform yourself, learn the relevant facts, assess the scientific consensus, and shed your willful ignorance.

Why do I suspect you intend to do none of those things? Hmmm....


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  18:52:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

Some things I doubt, and some things I accept, and who can say for sure my accuracy quotient?
So you embrace your inconsistency?
But one thing I know, is that the longer you spend being skeptical of a conclusion, the better informed that conclusion is apt to be.
That's why we learn the evidence. That's what being skeptical is all about. Not doing so is simply to wallow in ignorance.

While it's true that nobody can know everything, when you don't know, it's okay to say, "I don't know" and leave it at that. If you don't know the evidence well enough to even argue about AGW (and it's clear that you don't, or you're being cagey), then you don't know enough to even claim that "...Randi is merely practicing healthy skepticism towards a political agenda..." You don't seem to be willing to even support your conclusion that there is a controversy.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Landrew
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2009 :  22:19:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Landrew a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Originally posted by Landrew

Originally posted by Dave W.

Hey, Landrew: does your skepticism extend to evolution, which is at least as complex an issue as AGW and has a much, much larger manufactroversy?

Some things I doubt, and some things I accept, and who can say for sure my accuracy quotient?

But one thing I know, is that the longer you spend being skeptical of a conclusion, the better informed that conclusion is apt to be.

Or you could inform yourself, learn the relevant facts, assess the scientific consensus, and shed your willful ignorance.

Why do I suspect you intend to do none of those things? Hmmm....


Actually, you can't inform yourself of anything from a position of certitude. Only by employing willful uncertainty can you become open to potential new knowledge.

God bless women, for without them there would be no cookies.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  07:21:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So, just a troll after all.... /sigh

Oh well, good luck with that.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9675 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  11:24:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew
Actually, you can't inform yourself of anything from a position of certitude. Only by employing willful uncertainty can you become open to potential new knowledge.

Are you so arrogant that it hasn't crossed your mind that most of us already have started out being skeptical, critically analysed the topics of anthropogenic global warming (or evolution for that matter) and finally after critical analysis come to the tentative conclusion that AGW and evolution are scientifically well supported theories? Hell, even IPCC scientists says that the conclusions are tentative (though very strong) so noone is preaching absolute gospel here. No one is claiming certitude. That's your misrepresentation of our position.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  16:20:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mab, he is just trolling for a response. He is a bit less retarded than some of our other trolls... but he is just looking to be banned from the forums and/or start a nice fight.

His stated assumption of our certitude (ironically that is the only thing anyone has stated with certitude) is a poorly constructed straw-man and he is just trying to set it on fire.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2009 :  15:53:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

Originally posted by Dave W.

Hey, Landrew: does your skepticism extend to evolution, which is at least as complex an issue as AGW and has a much, much larger manufactroversy?

Some things I doubt, and some things I accept, and who can say for sure my accuracy quotient?

But one thing I know, is that the longer you spend being skeptical of a conclusion, the better informed that conclusion is apt to be.
So, you refuse to answer, huh?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend

USA
77 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2010 :  03:38:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit skeptic griggsy's Homepage Send skeptic griggsy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dr.Mabuse, amean and indeed! And the Bible made us atheists!

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.93 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000