OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gronk]

It's why the science is far from compelling

FFS


Prof Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales,

The argument is specious. Anyone can claim there is no evidence if they refuse to look at it. In Galileo’s time, some people refused to look into his telescope and then claimed there was no evidence to support what he was saying. Same thing today.

The problem is that evidence does not stand up by itself and announce the answer to any given question. Evidence must be interpreted by humans. Scientists have all interpreted the evidence, going back decades, and unanimously agree that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) humans are increasing CO2 and (b) this is causing warming. There is not a single respectable atmospheric scientist in the world whom I know of, who disagrees with either of these conclusions (there are a handful who challenge the magnitude of the effect but that’s a different question).

It is impossible to make a prediction based on data alone. Only a model can make a prediction of anything that has not happened yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's true. I get all my info from Elle MacPherson.

 

[Gronk]

It's true. I get all my info from Elle MacPherson.

Looking through her side window doesn’t count.

 

[Bandwagon]

I would say the adults are using the child, no different to the case of a child her age being exploited by an adult trying to claim that he/she was seduced by said child. The implication being that the adult has a better handle on the costs and risks than does the child.

This is generally how it works, so it must work that way in this instance. Again, all supposition on your part.

What case?

Really? You need me tell you what you are arguing?

It's like, directly above my replies merkin?.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

FFS


Prof Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales,

The argument is specious. Anyone can claim there is no evidence if they refuse to look at it. In Galileo’s time, some people refused to look into his telescope and then claimed there was no evidence to support what he was saying. Same thing today.

The problem is that evidence does not stand up by itself and announce the answer to any given question. Evidence must be interpreted by humans. Scientists have all interpreted the evidence, going back decades, and unanimously agree that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) humans are increasing CO2 and (b) this is causing warming. There is not a single respectable atmospheric scientist in the world whom I know of, who disagrees with either of these conclusions (there are a handful who challenge the magnitude of the effect but that’s a different question).

It is impossible to make a prediction based on data alone. Only a model can make a prediction of anything that has not happened yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk

I don't disagree with any of that. It certainly doesn't refute my point.

 

[Bandwagon]

I don't disagree with any of that. It certainly doesn't refute my point.

What point?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

This is generally how it works, so it must work that way in this instance. Again, all supposition on your part.

And therefore supposition in your assessment that I'm wrong. However in my case I at least have provided the argument that it is typically adults using children and not the other way around. And if it is a case of them mutually using each other that doesn't invalidate my claim that Thunberg is being used.

Really? You need me tell you what you are arguing?

It's like, directly above my replies merkin?.

Well since Gronk has proven his ability to misrepresent me I won't assume you haven't done the same. What exactly do you think my 'case' is?

 

[Bandwagon]

And therefore supposition in your assessment that I'm wrong. However in my case I at least have provided the argument that it is typically adults using children and not the other way around. And if it is a case of them mutually using each other that doesn't invalidate my claim that Thunberg is being used.

I'm not claiming to know either way, you'll note I haven't. My claim is that your claim is nonsense because it's based entirely upon supposition. Your rather generous provision of generalisations not withstanding.

Well since Gronk has proven his ability to misrepresent me I won't assume you haven't done the same. What exactly do you think my 'case' is?

Ha ha, X did , so Y did as well. awesome.

I'll tell you what, you'll know when I misrepresent you, it'll be when you can quote said misrepresentation. Until such time, completely devoid of evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest maybe it's safe to assume I'm doing no such thing.

So forgive me if I might respectfully decline your invitation to define your arguments, I kinda feel that's your job, not mine.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Slacker.

 

[Bandwagon]

Slacker.

Demarcation is no joking matter.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'm not claiming to know either way, you'll note I haven't. My claim is that your claim is nonsense because it's based entirely upon supposition. Your rather generous provision of generalisations not withstanding.

The generalisation is significant evidence in support. The evidence against is that so far Greta doesn't appear to have suffered from her role as mouthpiece, though being a child, the long term effects are the chief concern.

Ha ha, X did , so Y did as well. awesome.

I certainly can't rule it out.

I'll tell you what, you'll know when I misrepresent you, it'll be when you can quote said misrepresentation. Until such time, completely devoid of evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest maybe it's safe to assume I'm doing no such thing.

So forgive me if I might respectfully decline your invitation to define your arguments, I kinda feel that's your job, not mine.

I think I'll also include when your responses appear to be intended for a position I don't hold, as Gronk has so recently done. You're as likely as he is to decide arguing with a strawman is easier and more preferable.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Oops.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

 

[84 Baby]

That's a f**ken lie you f**ken dickhead!! They're delicious, and what's more they completely cured my Tourette's. Asshole!

By vengeful health freaks I mainly meant my wife. But you’ll do

 

[Bandwagon]

The generalisation is significant evidence in support. The evidence against is that so far Greta doesn't appear to have suffered from her role as mouthpiece, though being a child, the long term effects are the chief concern.

Generalisation is probably enough to give cause to explore a theory, however it is not evidence in and of it's self. Ie, If 9/10 arguments are conducted in bad faith, then therefore this argument also is conducted in bad faith.

I certainly can't rule it out.

Nor can you rule out the giant spaghetti monster, I mean there's no evidence to suggest one exists, but hey, I've seen small and large bowls of spaghetti, so who's to say there isn't a f**king giant one out there somewhere.

I think I'll also include when your responses appear to be intended for a position I don't hold, as Gronk has so recently done. You're as likely as he is to decide arguing with a strawman is easier and more preferable.

Ironically this is rather strawman like.

Did you plan it that way, or is this some kind of automatic defence response?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Generalisation is probably enough to give cause to explore a theory, however it is not evidence in and of it's self. Ie, If 9/10 arguments are conducted in bad faith, then therefore this argument also is conducted in bad faith.

It's a fair assumption, and one worth maintaining until further evidence confirmed or denied it.

Nor can you rule out the giant spaghetti monster, I mean there's no evidence to suggest one exists, but hey, I've seen small and large bowls of spaghetti, so who's to say there isn't a f**king giant one out there somewhere.

I believe there is compelling evidence to suggest the spaghetti monster (giant, flying or otherwise) is merely a rhetorical device, and not something anyone actually believes in. But if you claim, in good faith, to believe that such a being exists I certainly couldn't be bothered disagreeing with you.

Ironically this is rather strawman like.

Did you plan it that way, or is this some kind of automatic defence response?

Probably when you suggested I was building some sort of case is when I decided you were misrepresenting my position.

 

[Bandwagon]

It's a fair assumption, and one worth maintaining until further evidence confirmed or denied it..

Ah, Ok, it's an assumption. Cool. whether it's fair or not is far more subjective than objective.

I believe there is compelling evidence to suggest the spaghetti monster (giant, flying or otherwise) is merely a rhetorical device, and not something anyone actually believes in. But if you claim, in good faith, to believe that such a being exists I certainly couldn't be bothered disagreeing with you..

Kinda like "I certainly can't rule it out".

Probably when you suggested I was building some sort of case is when I decided you were misrepresenting my position.

Case, as in building that which defends your arguments.

I sincerely apologise such frivolous use of a word caused you to project your troublesome experiences with Gronk upon me.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Induction to induce the validity of induction.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ah, Ok, it's an assumption. Cool. whether it's fair or not is far more subjective than objective.

Well assuming your 90% hypothetical I'd say it's definitely fair.

Kinda like "I certainly can't rule it out".

Why would you disagree with this?

Case, as in building that which defends your arguments.

I sincerely apologise such frivolous use of a word caused you to project your troublesome experiences with Gronk upon me.

As long as you don't think I'm trying to change your mind. If this was a private discussion I would've agreed to disagree long ago.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

FFS Barry, I was having enough trouble understanding what they were talking about!