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
 Conspiracy Theories
 Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  20:39:24  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

New scientific data refutes AGAIN the world wide scientific consensus of man made global warming.

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.



It is refreshing to see the reality of science debunk the political propaganda. AGAIN!


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:15:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome, you bolded all the wrong words. It doesn't matter that the original studies were conducted by scientists or that they were peer reviewed. The part that should raise alarm bells is the fact that this is a "new analysis" being made public by a PR firm.

So who did this "new analysis" of the scientists' work? The Hudson Institute--a pro-capitalism "think tank" with a long history of anti-environmentalism. Gee, I sure trust free-market ideologues to present climate science fairly and accurately.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/13/2007 21:16:56
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:25:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Jerome, you bolded all the wrong words. It doesn't matter that the original studies were conducted by scientists or that they were peer reviewed. The part that should raise alarm bells is the fact that this is a "new analysis" being made public by a PR firm.

So who did this "new analysis" of the scientists' work? The Hudson Institute--a pro-capitalism "think tank" with a long history of anti-environmentalism. Gee, I sure trust free-market ideologues to present climate science fairly and accurately.






Evidence does not count because the presenter picked his nose in the third grade!



Not a word about the facts---straight to ad hom attacks!


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:28:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It doesn't matter that the original studies were conducted by scientists or that they were peer reviewed.




Peer reviewed science does not matter!


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:30:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
To everyone else reading this: Sorry for the outburst. It is just that HH is soooo funny.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:33:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Lets see…

Here is an article on this.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:36:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What is there to refute? There is nothing listed in that media piece about how The Hudson Institute went about "analyzing" the peer-reviewed studies.

You've been burned before for believing someone who did this exact same trick. The scientists themselves have already said that they are in consensus, yet you believe a pro-capitalist think tank who says they've "re-analyzed" the studies to produce exactly the outcome their ideology requires? And you accept it without question? Really? And have nothing to say in your defense except obnoxious emoticons? Pretty pathetic, Jerome.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:37:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by H. Humbert
It doesn't matter that the original studies were conducted by scientists or that they were peer reviewed.




Peer reviewed science does not matter!


No, that's not at all what I meant. Intentionally twisting people's words to create ridiculous strawmen was what got you banned from here last time, Jerome. It would seem you just can't help but be dishonest, though, can you?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  21:55:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Lets see…

Here is an article on this.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air



The author of this article states:
No one asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity


This is a blatantly false statement giving doubt to other assertions.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:01:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by Kil

Lets see…

Here is an article on this.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air



The author of this article states:
No one asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity


This is a blatantly false statement giving doubt to other assertions.



Present day warmth, Jerome. That is right now. He was addressing a strawman argument.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:03:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Lets see…

Here is an article on this.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air



Here is another good one:
A word about models in science (REMOVED AD HOM). Models would have little use if they were so easy to bend into any answer we thought we knew about in advance


So, according to this the fact that models can not replicate known data means that they should be trusted to predict unknown data.

Double think at its finest.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:07:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil
The author of this article states:
No one asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity


This is a blatantly false statement giving doubt to other assertions.



Present day warmth, Jerome. That is right now. He was addressing a strawman argument.



He was addressing this:
Human populations of Europe and India thrived during the medieval warm time, so clearly warming is good for us.


This is his paraphrase. Where is the straw man and what was accurately said?

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:10:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And now the full quote:

A word about models in science (as opposed to in think-tank economics, Mr. Avery's home turf). Models would have little use if they were so easy to bend into any answer we thought we knew about in advance. One can always be critical of models, but there is no model that avoids global warming by parting the heavens, or that is exquisitely sensitive to solar variability but insensitive to CO2, the worlds that Mr. Avery wishes for.


Jerome has just engaged in blatant quote mining. Good work Jerome. Do you not realize that anyone can read what was said by following the link?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:16:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by Kil
The author of this article states:
No one asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity


This is a blatantly false statement giving doubt to other assertions.



Present day warmth, Jerome. That is right now. He was addressing a strawman argument.



He was addressing this:
Human populations of Europe and India thrived during the medieval warm time, so clearly warming is good for us.


This is his paraphrase. Where is the straw man and what was accurately said?
The strawman is that Avery implies that because there have been past warming trends that we have nothing to worry about. Problem is, this ignores the data that clearly shows that the current warming, at the rate it is happening, is not consistent with earlier trends.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:20:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

And now the full quote:

A word about models in science (as opposed to in think-tank economics, Mr. Avery's home turf). Models would have little use if they were so easy to bend into any answer we thought we knew about in advance. One can always be critical of models, but there is no model that avoids global warming by parting the heavens, or that is exquisitely sensitive to solar variability but insensitive to CO2, the worlds that Mr. Avery wishes for.


Jerome has just engaged in blatant quote mining. Good work Jerome Do you not realize that anyone can read what was said by following the link?


Quote mining denotes that the meaning is changed intentionally.

And the meaning of the quote changes how?

He is responding to the fact that models could not replicate known past facts about the climate. He ignores what he is claiming to rebut.








What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2007 :  22:24:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil
The strawman is that Avery implies that because there have been past warming trends that we have nothing to worry about. Problem is, this ignores the data that clearly shows that the current warming, at the rate it is happening, is not consistent with earlier trends.


And how is this a straw man? Avery is making a claim about the future based on the past. He is not defining someone else's argument.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
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 0.25 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000