Hardly. It is the more current crop of progressive indoctrinated students that cannot spell, reason, know geography, or history. BUT... they can tell you about the evils of capitalism, the urgent horrors of global warming, the glories of evolution, & a few other pet issues from the progressive left... all masked in Fake Science. False correlation. You are trying to equivocate the proven medical research of smoking with the very sketchy, contrived, & manipulated data from AGW promoters. That is what makes it 'fake science'. You are trying to correlate past REAL science with the phony science going on today. They are not the same. There is no scientific methodology presented, but mandates for conformity. the AGW crowd does not deal with science, but hysteria & propaganda. They have sketchy data & phony, manipulated computer models. There is no debate, scientifically, but mandates to believe, as in the dark ages. They are interrelated, especially in the Fake Science community. One need only look at the Big Two, in modern science, to see the prevalence of fake science. Both AGW & the ToE are promoted as 'settled science', and NO questioning is allowed, by the True Believers of these religious tenets of faith. And yes, i see 'leftism' as being the main offender in the Fake Science promotion. They do violence to Real science, & denigrate the scientific method. Everything is mandated conformity, not open inquiry.
And this is obviously the opinion of someone who did not get past kindergarten science Sorry mate but real science is not some twonk in a lab coat with a beaker full of funny stuff This is as idiotic as that twerp that keeps coming up with the weird science rubbish
I do not see human beings with the ability to separate the 2. And even more, now, with the explosion of Fake Science, the mandates of the elite, the appeal to experts, & the fuzzying of 'empiricism' to mean whatever the elite authorities declare it to mean. Why do most of those who claim 'Science!' as the basis for their thinking have the progressive talking points for their philosophical & political opinions? And, they do not present them as 'opinions', most of the time, because they have been indoctrinated by Fake Science to believe their beliefs are Absolute Truth. And, these 'values & beliefs' are religiously indoctrinated by the High Priests of the day.. demanding conformity, & phrasing everything in pseudo science, to keep the True Believers sedated in Newspeak & deceptive propaganda.
Good illustration of the OP! Logic, science, & empiricism are lost, & we are left with declared, mandated beliefs, & logical fallacies to support them.
Lost to you perhaps.....well obviously....easily found and used by most others. It would seem that you dismiss most actual logic and scientific data simply because you cannot grasp it and thus avoid discussing it in favor of childish commentary devoid of useful or helpful dialogue. Nuh Uh is not a form of debate.
I'll fall over in a dead faint if i ever get that from you guys.... Oh, & i see you're jumping on the bandwagon of the 'nuh uh!' projection! You seem to think by just accusing & promoting a false narrative, that makes it believable.. typical fake science tactic... I'm trying to remember if i've EVER gotten any 'actual logic & scientific data' from you.. & i can't think of any. If you remember any, could you post it to refresh my memory? I've looked back in several threads that you've been 'debating' with me, & i don't see any 'logic or data' that would support your claim, here. And if there was, i'm sure i addressed it. It is such a rare occurrence, i get giddy with excitement when anyone posts some real data & logical arguments. Most of the time, on these forums, all i get are the logical fallacies.. like you're doing here.
Why do you pretend you haven't been presented with science and logic? You obviously know people can search the forum and see this. And your arguments are perfectly summed up by "nuh uh". You are presented numerous studies, peer reviewed papers etc, and you hand waive them away. You present no evidence at all to support your assertions. You simply declare the evidence provided as impossible. That's not an argument
No. I'm influenced by the fact that a majority of the scientific community accepts AGW as true. I can quote Wikipedia, NASA.gov, or Scientific American, but you'll probably just accuse those sources (and any other I might use) as being "unreliable" while citing some Breitbart poll of oil industry geologists or whatever.
As I said, you are not influenced by knowing the subject but by a logical fallacy, appeal to authority.
It's not considered a logical fallacy in this situation. If so, then all science can be called an "appeal to authority." Besides, who's challenging the scientific community? You have Big Oil and Republican politicians. Ha. Hardly some authority on climate science.
Who put it in your mind that AGW is just a bunch of "evil scientists" lying to the public? Surely not the same organization utilized by Big Tobacco once upon a time to spread disinfo and doubt about the science of cigarettes. Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center
You should be careful here because the details are important. If you want to appeal to authority you should at least do it right. Most scientists believe in the basic global warming theory but they do not believe in global warming alarmism. Most of the alarmists are climatetoligists who recieve funding soley to research global warming. https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...obal-warming-crisis/?client=ms-android-att-us "People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus."
Your fan fanciful and false narrative probably bolsters your bias but again, you show you are more interested in belief than science.
AGW is a scientific consensus. So is evolution and any other theory the right denies. - - - Updated - - - This is reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
I have news for you , you cant either. Lets see your credentials. Always resorting to insults how sad - - - Updated - - - Fake science and fake logic dont count - - - Updated - - - No they do not. They like all of us agree we have an effect not the same thing - - - Updated - - - No it isnt and even if it were consensus is not the same as proof
I do not see how common sense can be certified, and I suppose to the thin skinned my honest commentary could be considered insulting...this however merely compliments the validity of my statement.
Common sense tells us the climate has always changed and always will. There is no doubt we contribute to climate change but so does every other thing on the planet. You guys seem to believe we are alien to this planet, Beaver builds a dam thats natural, we do it we are messing with nature
this is an example of the "nuh uh" argument. Please provide your scientific, peer reviewed evidence that the ToE or AGW is false.
Did you read that in 'The Daily Leftist'? Somehow by repeating that same, lame dismissive line it will make people's lips quiver, & run off blubbering because your response was so witty & devastating? I notice others of your comrades are using it, too. I guess its easier than actually having to SAY something, or produce reason, evidence or even arguments. And ironically, you probably don't even notice that you are the one actually using this 'argument'... Kind of boring. A little annoying, because of the repetition & juvenile nature.. but for a rational person, it has no effect whatsoever. It actually makes it easier to just skip over your posts, because i know you have nothing of content to add to the discussion. Carry on. Have fun with your little word games.
No what we are doing is telling you to your face you are ignorant of science Dont care where you take it from there because it is like a man criticising a high heel shoe - don't tell me it is not "feminine enough" until you have tried to walk in the sodding things!!! But there is ZERO evidence for your contentions - you have provided no proofs of your beliefs no substantiation simply a mindset based on bias Why would we listen to you?
