Weather Channel Co-Founder Totally Dismisses Theory of Climate Change (school, compare, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ehm - who, apart from yourself, declared you the arbiter of relevance?
Who made you? It's FACT that what you said wasn't relevant. And it's FACT, because relevance is determined by reason, not by dictate.
Let's just use your logic in a different setting and see if it holds up to scrutiny.
"Your marbles are worthless". "How do you know?" "I opened one bag of your 18,000 bags and found a broken one." "How does that make them all worthless?" "The bag I opened had a broken marble".
See, stating that one minute period of time, arbitrarily chosen, has some specific unique quality that defines all the rest, when we're trying to establish whether or not anything unique actually exists, is false logic.
Your argument is that AGW must exist because a minute fraction of 1% of theorized history is recorded and one event is not repeated inside that minute fraction is indeed neither logical, nor mathematically defensible.
But, if you were trying to get people to NOT think, to make it SOUND impressive by saying "all recorded history", you were intentionally deceptive.
But, if you were trying to get people to NOT think, to make it SOUND impressive by saying "all recorded history", you were intentionally deceptive.
Or, as some say, "precise". I somehow assumed that the difference between history and prehistory would be a trivial matter to readers of a US message board, but it appears I was unduly optimistic. Pity.
Who made you? It's FACT that what you said wasn't relevant. And it's FACT, because relevance is determined by reason, not by dictate.
Let's just use your logic in a different setting and see if it holds up to scrutiny.
"Your marbles are worthless". "How do you know?" "I opened one bag of your 18,000 bags and found a broken one." "How does that make them all worthless?" "The bag I opened had a broken marble".
See, stating that one minute period of time, arbitrarily chosen, has some specific unique quality that defines all the rest, when we're trying to establish whether or not anything unique actually exists, is false logic.
Your argument is that AGW must exist because a minute fraction of 1% of theorized history is recorded and one event is not repeated inside that minute fraction is indeed neither logical, nor mathematically defensible.
But, if you were trying to get people to NOT think, to make it SOUND impressive by saying "all recorded history", you were intentionally deceptive.
Which, is what all AGW promoters have to do.
And they can never ever tell you why the earth was far hotter, prior to the existance of humans on the planet.. They just pretend like the question never existed and ignore it..
note I've asked and linked to sources here to back that up, not one has even acknowledge it..
And the hack scientists who claim their opinions are fact don't bother you at all.
Only because you find that opinion politically expedient.
Actually their statements are related to the research they conduct, quite the difference. Let me know when Coleman has done any actual research to base his statements on that turn them into facts.
Masters? Do you mean trained scientists? I am sure they would be quite flattered to hear you call them masters.
If someone is "trained", they're not scientists. You don't 'train' people to do original things. You "train" them to do things others have done before them.
I do agree, however, that you want your scientists "trained" to have the expedient outcomes politicians want.
Nope, I haven't ever claimed my opinion was fact. Not sure where you got that idea from.
You are saying he's wrong and he's a hack because he's done no scientific research, which of course you have absolutely no proof to make such a claim, thus the conclusion is, you are stating for a fact that he's wrong..
if you arent saying he's wrong, then you need to re-examine your statements.
Actually their statements are related to the research they conduct, quite the difference. Let me know when Coleman has done any actual research to base his statements on that turn them into facts.
Let me know when your agw "scientists" have done any actual research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.