Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:07 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Yes. Who the h.ll are you people having a conversation with?
the one who said "written" records hold relevance to the discussion..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
The availability of written records is generally how you tell apart historic and prehistoric times. That's why we have both words.

 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:07 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,955,048 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
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.

Which, is what all AGW promoters have to do.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,097,852 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Arent you doing the same?
Nope, I haven't ever claimed my opinion was fact. Not sure where you got that idea from.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:08 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,955,048 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I only call him a hack journalist because he is acting as if his opinion is fact.
And the hack scientists who claim their opinions are fact don't bother you at all.

Only because you find that opinion politically expedient.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:10 PM
 
46,889 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
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.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:10 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
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..
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,097,852 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
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.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:11 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,955,048 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
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.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:11 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
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.
 
Old 10-22-2014, 09:12 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,955,048 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top