Reply With Quote
I fail to see how that applies here.
Report me. Nice. Is that how you think of it in your mind? I ratted him out?
I fail to see how that applies here.
That's the point. I am trying to explain it to you so you can understand. This is just step 1. Now do you know what the domain of a function is?
How does that relate to showing different scales on a graph, or posing the question of why absolute zero isn't used to show actual relativity?
I know what a domain is in mathematics. What's next.
Its not a matter of scale. The domains are simply shifted. Celsius has an endpoint of -273 whereas Kelvin has an endpoint of zero. AFAIK the positive end is openended. -273 C = 0 K and as they increase they increase at exactly the same scale ie -272 C = 1 K.
The kelvin is simply a domain shifted function of C ie F(C) = C + 273.
Darrin I posted it here and sent out like 9 emails. Characterizing it as an op-ed in the NYT or public rally speech is fun by I targeted specific individuals and had no desire to broadcast it to the world for a reason.
Sending it anonymously also has a purpose. None of those guys can publish that and it have any sort of credibility. I just wanted them to know and more importantly have PopTart know that they know.
Why do you think he edited all his posts from his admission to having an autism spectrum disorder to claims of me being a psychotic drug addict? You think it's cause he wanted more web hits?
Consider that maybe just maybe he does have a personality disorder as he did claim to have. Think about it.
This has not been determined and is irrelevant to the fact that the amount of papers that explicitly mention "anthropogenic global warming" is small.
The list does not represent a "no harm" thesis as it is only a resource. Papers supporting such a thesis can be found on the list.
You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.
A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.
Guilt by Association (Patrick J. Michaels, NRO, May 9, 2012)
My friends on the left make much of the apparent correlation between creationism and skepticism about assured climate disaster. It is the “some–all fallacy” writ large. “Some” climate scientists who happen to believe in intelligent design, a variant of creationism, also question the high-sensitivity climate model. Therefore “all” who hypothesize that warming has been overblown must also question evolution; i.e., they are ignorant dolts. [...]
The “some” of the fallacy is the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, a climate physicist who argues (as do I) that the “sensitivity” of climate to dreaded carbon dioxide has been overestimated in computer models. Spencer also believes in intelligent design.
Spencer’s chosen form of belief to explain the mystery of the first life on Earth is hardly germane to a rational discussion of his interpretation of climate findings. There are plenty of productive and successful scientists who go to church — most of which preach that God created man. And there are plenty of good scientists who don’t.
So far as I can tell, the percentage of climate skeptics who are also religious is about the same as among the entire population of climate scientists in general. Some apocalyptic warmists believe in God, too, you know. At the University of Virginia, where I spent 30 years in the Department of Environmental Sciences, most of my colleagues didn’t attend church, but some did. There was little correlation between their religious beliefs and their scientific success. While the atmospheric scientists in that department were known for their skepticism about the upcoming climate disaster, none were churchgoers. [...]
Let’s stop conflating the creationist hoi polloi with skeptical climate scientists. The mystery about how life arose on earth is simply unrelated to global-warming science, no matter what those scientists might believe.
I have not misrepresented anything. Only drug addicts like yourself are psychotic liars.
The emphasis was on laughter not rage.
I can see it now.
DUN DUN DUN! (open to theme song)
PopTech, esq.
Starring "Poptech, avenging liberatarian superstar"
"Your honor, I have brought forward an expert scientist, here are all of his credentials. Please ignore his other statements equating non-scientific theories with valid scientific ones, and focus only on what I want you to, because the people bringing that up are bigots with a firm bias against bull ".
What I have here is a letter from a poster on the SpursTalk political forum.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-25-2012 at 06:05 PM.
If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?
He wasn't stating a relgious belief, sporto.
He was assigning validity to a non-scientific theory, and equating that to a valid scientific theory.
That pretty much meets any reasonable definition of pseudo-science.
Oh I do want more web hits. I had no idea you would be this helpful.
This is why the list and truth articles are such a problem for alarmists because in order for you to criticize them, you have to discuss them, which leads people to actually read them. As anyone rational can read the source material themselves and make up their own minds. This generates an actual positive feedback loop as the truth spreads.
Why are you a religious bigot?
(edit)
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that Roy Spencer believes intelligent design is as valid a theory as evolution.
All I do is apply honest skepticism which is why I am not making ad hominem arguments against Dr. Spencer like you are.
The email was exclusively about your mental disorder and how it manifests. You going to write an article le "The Truth About My Aspergers Disorder?"Oh I do want more web hits. I had no idea you would be this helpful.
This is why the list and truth articles are such a problem for alarmists because in order for you to criticize them, you have to discuss them, which leads people to actually read them. As anyone rational can read the source material themselves and make up their own minds. This generates an actual positive feedback loop as the truth spreads.
Implied:
"Randomguy says that Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones"
Random guy is a religious bigot.
Therefore, I, PopTech say Randomguy is wrong about Roy Spencer"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
---------------------------------------------------Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
Person A = RandomGuy
Claim X = Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones
Person B = Poptech
Attack = Random guy is a religious bigot
The religious bigots are all very easy to spot as they obsess on discussing creationism like RG does.
Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones.
He could very well be right, about his climate science claims, I lack the inclination to really dig into it.
However, when one has indications that a person engages in poor reasoning, one should be a bit more skeptical of that persons' interpretation of data.
That is quite logical and appropriate.
If I have a less than credible expert interpreting data one way, and another credible expert telling me something else entirely, it is only logical to assign the latter a higher probability of being correct than the former.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-25-2012 at 06:15 PM.
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)
Posting Permissions
