Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Poptech]

If its dishonest and loaded explain why.

Also explain what is libelous in my statement.

Again, you're not adding value. You're not saying anything.

I am not here to entertain you.

[Th'Pusher]

I am not here to entertain you.

That's fine. But I'll side with RG on this one. Your inability to answer the most basic questions leads me to believe you to be an intellectually dishonest person.

He attempted to have an honest debate with you and you spun, and obfuscated and refused to answer basic questions.

For those reasons, I believe he wins.

And just a general life tip, I'd encourage you to be less emotionally attached to your "work".

Your iden y doesn't have to revolve around being a player in the sceptic community.

Free of charge

[Wild Cobra]

That's fine. But I'll side with RG on this one. Your inability to answer the most basic questions leads me to believe you to be an intellectually dishonest person.

He attempted to have an honest debate with you and you spun, and obfuscated and refused to answer basic questions.

For those reasons, I believe he wins.

And just a general life tip, I'd encourage you to be less emotionally attached to your "work".

Your iden y doesn't have to revolve around being a player in the sceptic community.

Free of charge

Maybe you should stop with the loaded questions, and see if he responds differently. All I see is him responding in-kind. You guys are being an ass, so he is too.

[RandomGuy]

No you haven't and no it is not, this absolutely destroys your idiotic wonderingmind video.

It is amusing to me that you think so.

I would note that the le of the thread concerns my theory that people like yourself are essentially buying into pseudo-science.

I prove my point by being reasonable, calm and respectful, and letting you commit all the logical fallacies you want to, and behave in a manner that parallels other practictioners of woo, such as 9-11 twoofers.

[RandomGuy]

I do not believe any relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW.

So you are denying you were poisoning the well with your personal attacks? Oh please, spare me your bull . What is more likely is you are mentally deranged.

No evidence whatsoever exists to support the catastrophic effects of AGW?

None?

So all the people saying there is are lying? How do you account for them in your milieu? Deliberately lying conspiracy?

No valid evidence exists.

Strawman argument.

It isn't a strawman to ask clarifying question, in fact quite the opposite.

To imply that a clarifying question asked in good faith is a strawman logical fallacy is dishonest.

So I will ask again, as I am attempting to merely understand the basis on which you claim there is no valid evidence.

There are scientists and organizations of scientists claiming there is evidence of potentially catastrophic damage caused by the rapid rise in atmospheric green house gases. I can provide links if you wish.

Are these scientists lying about the evidence?

Loaded Question.

Then by all means, clarify. I am merely trying to understand the process by which you have reached your conclusions, to see if my view of the world is as accurate as possible. Perhaps I have missed something, I certainly value the truth.

How did you reach the conclusion that there is "no relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW."? i.e. there appears to be, according to a lot of scientists and organizations a lot of "relevant evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW", how did you conclude differently? what is your basis for asserting this?

[RandomGuy]

Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.

Interesting. Let me know how that goes.

[RandomGuy]

...

When I use the term ad hominem though, I refer very specifically to the generally accepted meaning used in most debates and formal philosophy, of flawed reasoning.

That makes it far clearer whose points and position is more supported by logical inference and factual statements, IMO.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

Considering you have yet to present a definition from an actual dictionary nothing can be considered "dueling". It has been well established you resort to juvenile personal attacks anytime you cannot debate someone, so there is no need for you to further demonstrate this. Last I checked you do not define the context of the words people use here. And, yes, it is quite clear my points and positions are more supported by logic and facts - this has been well established here.

Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to subs ute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

It is a simple yes or no question.

I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

9-11 twoofers also have meltdowns when asked simple yes or no questions. We have whole sections of this forum dedicated to that.

The entire le of the thread has to do with pseudo-science and flawed reasoning. That question is about as on-topic as it gets.

I will ask a third time, a simple, fair, and honest question:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

[RandomGuy]

Let's sum up.

The following posts are where I ask for any direct evidence of various claims made by Cosmored, and no such evidence was supplied or where I directly pointed out the logical flaws (all ad hominem) in Cosmored's arguments:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=232

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=234

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=249

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=279

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=422

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=466

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=548

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=550

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=565

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=565

(one of my favorites, where Cosmored proves he is a sophist, as he claims I am):

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=603

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=627

Here is where Cosmored admits that he doesn't tend to watch things that rebut his own points:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=549

Here is one where I break down one of Cosmored's claims to find the underlying assumptions that essentially require modern physics to be wrong for ol' Cosmo to be right. This got a big round of ignore too:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=626

Here is where Cosmored applies different standards of evidence to people he agrees with than to anybody else (another reason he got banned from the other websites by the way)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=634

Here is one that Cosmored has yet to speak to with something other than internet videos:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=635

I will not watch any further videos posted by Cosmored since he will not do the same for me. That is simply fair. If Cosmored wishes to post quick executive summaries of his videos, I will be happy to address them.

Lastly:

What we have here is a rather standard pattern of "argument" by Cosmored.

1) Dismiss sources using the logical "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

2) Make claims, but fail to provide direct proof of those assertions when repeatedly asked.

Both of which would get you laughed out of any debating hall.

Rules of debate:
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech..._is_debate.htm

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/co...EBATERULES.htm

Do not use ad hominem arguments.

Word.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Interesting. Let me know how that goes.

I'm finding that any mention is good enough to be get on the list regardless of the take of the source. This is much like his anti-AGW scientific papers where the paper's conclude the affirmative and he cherry picks that part out.

[boutons_deux]

Video: It Only Takes 60 Seconds to Refute Every Obnoxious Climate Denier You Know

If only all complicated science was accompanied by a kindly but sober British accent, and a jazzy beat. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. Royal Society have teamed up to produce this beautiful animation about the basics of climate science—from the greenhouse effect, to the role of human burning of fossil fuels, and the impacts on sea level rise, temperatures and the arctic. It's well worth your 60 seconds.

For more reading, the two groups have co-authored an excellent (and colorful) climate change primer that lays out the answers to 20 common questions—great to have up your sleeve for that awkward Christmas lunch with your climate-denying cousin. And there's also a more lengthy report—still highly readable—to get you deeper into the nitty gritty of of the science.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marb...ial-60-seconds

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...animation.html

[Poptech]

That's fine. But I'll side with RG on this one. Your inability to answer the most basic questions leads me to believe you to be an intellectually dishonest person.

I am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Poptech]

It is amusing to me that you think so.

I would note that the le of the thread concerns my theory that people like yourself are essentially buying into pseudo-science.

I prove my point by being reasonable, calm and respectful, and letting you commit all the logical fallacies you want to, and behave in a manner that parallels other practictioners of woo, such as 9-11 twoofers.

You are attempting to win the debate using personal attacks and ad hominems. Now you are attempting to associate me with 911 Truthers because you lost the actual debate some time ago.

[Poptech]

Then by all means, clarify. I am merely trying to understand the process by which you have reached your conclusions, to see if my view of the world is as accurate as possible. Perhaps I have missed something, I certainly value the truth.

Enough with the rhetorical games, you have no interest in the truth and never have. What you are interested in is attempting to smear all opposition to your ideologically held beliefs.

How did you reach the conclusion that there is "no relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW."?

A lot of research.

i.e. there appears to be, according to a lot of scientists and organizations a lot of "relevant evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW", how did you conclude differently? what is your basis for asserting this?

Correction: there are some scientists and some figure heads of organizations that may believe there is evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW. In each case I have found this to be either open to interpretation, misleading or completely inaccurate.

[boutons_deux]

Correction: there are some scientists and some figure heads of organizations that may believe there is evidence supporting catastrophic effects of AGW. In each case I have found this to be either open to interpretation, misleading or completely inaccurate.

correction: the vast majority of scientists .... (those not paid to deny AGW and its disastrous effects)

[Th'Pusher]

I am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

you are an angry, belligerent and highly emotional man.

Have fun with your "work"

[RandomGuy]

I'm finding that any mention is good enough to be get on the list regardless of the take of the source. This is much like his anti-AGW scientific papers where the paper's conclude the affirmative and he cherry picks that part out.

That is essentially what I found when I started reading through the papers as well.

Actual scientific meta-analysis is very, very transparent about the selection process, the preciousss lissst is not.

[RandomGuy]

You are attempting to win the debate using personal attacks and ad hominems. Now you are attempting to associate me with 911 Truthers because you lost the actual debate some time ago.

The stated purpose of this thread is to associate people such as your self with 9-11 truthers. It says so in the OP.

All I have to do in order to succeed at that is to simply let you talk, because the faulty reasoning methods and rhetorical style you employ are so strikingly similar that that of the twoofers who push chemtrails, fluoride denial, and controlled demolition.

Every time you post something like this, and don't answer honest, fair questions, I win.

I don't need ad hominems to do it, and have committed no such logical fallacies, even by the definitions you have provided.

[Yonivore]

Not to interrupt the Poptech love-fest (which, thankfully, seems to be dying down a bit), can I again ask the question; when, according to their models, does the consensus say the planet will resume warming?

[RandomGuy]

...

When I use the term ad hominem though, I refer very specifically to the generally accepted meaning used in most debates and formal philosophy, of flawed reasoning.

That makes it far clearer whose points and position is more supported by logical inference and factual statements, IMO.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

Considering you have yet to present a definition from an actual dictionary nothing can be considered "dueling". It has been well established you resort to juvenile personal attacks anytime you cannot debate someone, so there is no need for you to further demonstrate this. Last I checked you do not define the context of the words people use here. And, yes, it is quite clear my points and positions are more supported by logic and facts - this has been well established here.

Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to subs ute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

It is a simple yes or no question.

I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

9

9-11 twoofers also have meltdowns when asked simple yes or no questions. We have whole sections of this forum dedicated to that.

The entire le of the thread has to do with pseudo-science and flawed reasoning. That question is about as on-topic as it gets.

I will ask a third time, a simple, fair, and honest question:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

[in passing-RG] am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

Not really a loaded question, merely a request for an opinion, so that we can have some rational, reasonable basis for discussion.

A loaded question would take the form similar to the one you chose "Do you think your flawed reasoning...", i.e. it includes a starting assumption.

But that wasn't what I asked. There is no underlying assumption required to answer the question in a meaningful way.

It is simple, yes or no. It is a question that I can answer easily. "no", and I would hope that you would agree.

Fourth time.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

[RandomGuy]

Not to interrupt the Poptech love-fest (which, thankfully, seems to be dying down a bit), can I again ask the question; when, according to their models, does the consensus say the planet will resume warming?

Good question. I don't know the answer.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

[Yonivore]

Good question. I don't know the answer.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

No worries, perhaps someone else in here can shed some light on it.

[RandomGuy]

correction: the vast majority of scientists .... (those not paid to deny AGW and its disastrous effects)

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book en led 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.
[TD]Subject: "Science is against the theory of evolution."
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:25:52 -0400
From: P
To: [email protected]

Because, as we all know, some scientists doubting a theory, must mean that there just is no evidence.

[RandomGuy]

No worries, perhaps someone else in here can shed some light on it.

name the fish that became a Bear.

how do you get a starfish from a random explosion?

Until you can answer these questions truthfully you will never understand Design it has nothing to do with a God.

Maybe you can help mouse with his question, while you are at it. He seems to be doubting the validity of a scientific theory because everything isn't fully explained either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No worries, perhaps someone else in here can shed some light on it.

I already did. Can you remember my answer the last time you asked this same question. I'll give you a a hint: your question is based on a premise ignorant to the science.

[Yonivore]

Maybe you can help mouse with his question, while you are at it. He seems to be doubting the validity of a scientific theory because everything isn't fully explained either.

Maybe you can explain why a huge consensus can claim to know the future, based on models they shoehorn into fitting the past, but cannot produce a model that even pretends to show a path to the future they predict.

Throw in some tomfoolery by the likes of Michael Mann and others, and you create skeptics that just aren't going to accept that the consensus knows what the they're talking about.

So, again, when does the consensus's models say the warming is going to resume? I want to mark the day.