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.
A guest post by a Joseph D’Aleo (a Creationist) on WattsUpWithThat conspiracy blog?
Joseph D’Aleo is a signatory to the Creationist Cornwall Alliance's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", in which they declare:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
The Cornwall Declaration further sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which "human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures" and "widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers."
It's also interesting see the names of other outspoken AGW denialists on that membership list.
Nifty and all, but what about his comments are invalid? Or... are you trying to imply that because of his reputation, everything he says is invalid? Care to logically reason that one for us if so?
Yes, one of you posters did. This is the initial discussion line. I was responding to MTAtech who was suggesting that melt was occurring in a manner that was unprecedented (we needed to worry about it) and he was responding in the context of chicagogeorge's mention.
I asked him to provide evidence of such, talked about the common research used to suggest warming in the Antarctic based on Stieg and then noted that it was faulty, that the warming is most noted being in the peninsula, to which O'donnel et al showed.
I then showed the position of NASA that the loss of ice shelves specifically are being attributed to warm water currents.
Your problem is that you are ignoring the context of the discussion. You entered in and started attacking from the beginning feigning ignorance to the entire discussion line. Several times you asked questions about "why" or "what evidence" was presented in the very quotes you made. I clarified by specifically highlighting the points of the abstracts and then you tried to evade that by claiming that I need to read the paper, implying that the abstracts falsely summarize their own papers.
The premise of this discussion is on antarctic warming and yet you deny that now after I have shown your false attempts to twist the discussion with alinsky tactics. The reconstructions of Stieg et al are clearly designed to establish a claim of Antarctica warming. What is funny is that it has been discredited by the O'donel paper, yet it is still used to suggest warming.
Like I said, run along, you need to be this high to ride this right little one. Better luck next time.
Oh dear. This is getting really silly. You STILL don't know what's in those papers because you haven't read them. Your pomposity and condescension is made even funnier because of that.
Oh dear. This is getting really silly. You STILL don't know what's in those papers because you haven't read them. Your pomposity and condescension is made even funnier because of that.
Failure to state.
You can keep skating around the issue, refusing to attend specifically to the flaws in your claims, but it won't change the fact that you haven't defended your position. All you are doing are making unfounded accusations. I have supported my argument, you have not.
I answered to your claims several times now and you can only accuse that I have not read the paper. By the way, accusations of such are not a valid premise.
We see the tactics you have. A poster provides key points on the issue and your response was to attack the character of the commenter while completely ignoring the content.
[quote=Nomander;31311004 Typical trash from activists.[/QUOTE]
The problem here is that no matter what "evidence" is presented because of your position your sole purpose is to discredit it rather than weigh it for validity.....thus, no evidence is ever good enough. Typical for skeptics with perpetually closed minds even to "possibilities. Individuals like this represent one of the main reasons we languished in the Dark Ages for a 1000 years. Inability or refusal to accept or even consider scientific evidence that's contrary to their beliefs.....or what they want to believe.
The problem here is that no matter what "evidence" is presented because of your position your sole purpose is to discredit it rather than weigh it for validity.....thus, no evidence is ever good enough. Typical for skeptics with perpetually closed minds even to "possibilities. Individuals like this represent one of the main reasons we languished in the Dark Ages for a 1000 years. Inability or refusal to accept or even consider scientific evidence that's contrary to their beliefs.....or what they want to believe.
Science is not a process of belief, it is a process of verification, validation, and replication. The onus is on the one with the hypothesis to properly establish itself through that process. I do not need to "discredit" your "evidence", it does it all by itself by not properly establishing itself according to that process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Albert Einstein"
It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact’.
You can keep skating around the issue, refusing to attend specifically to the flaws in your claims, but it won't change the fact that you haven't defended your position. All you are doing are making unfounded accusations. I have supported my argument, you have not.
I answered to your claims several times now and you can only accuse that I have not read the paper. By the way, accusations of such are not a valid premise.
We see the tactics you have. A poster provides key points on the issue and your response was to attack the character of the commenter while completely ignoring the content.
Typical trash from activists.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLZ. Talk about pot calling kettle black.
Overall arctic ice is melting. Remember decreasing salinity of water increases it's freezing temperature as one factor explaining increasing ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Science is not a process of belief, it is a process of verification, validation, and replication. The onus is on the one with the hypothesis to properly establish itself through that process. I do not need to "discredit" your "evidence", it does it all by itself by not properly establishing itself according to that process.
Science according to Nomander seems always agree with her ideology, what a coincidence!
Still going to duck,dodge, and deflect why you seem to appeal to Watt and Climate Audit? Honesty is usually a better policy as you aren't fooling anyone with your bias. Let's see if you can come clean.
Nifty and all, but what about his comments are invalid? Or... are you trying to imply that because of his reputation, everything he says is invalid? Care to logically reason that one for us if so?
Creationism is not science. For the same reason you don't trust Hansen's credibility, why should anyone believe a "scientist" who believes God won't allow climate to change due to man's actions?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLZ. Talk about pot calling kettle black.
Overall arctic ice is melting. Remember decreasing salinity of water increases it's freezing temperature as one factor explaining increasing ice.
Science according to Nomander seems always agree with her ideology, what a coincidence!
Still going to duck,dodge, and deflect why you seem to appeal to Watt and Climate Audit? Honesty is usually a better policy as you aren't fooling anyone with your bias. Let's see if you can come clean.
Ok there Zack, whatever you say.
But hey, you will agree to disagree right? That is what you love about science, there is no one right answer right?
Hey, but if you want to talk about rocks, dinosaurs, our friend the beaver... hey... we want to talk with you too.
Creationism is not science. For the same reason you don't trust Hansen's credibility, why should anyone believe a "scientist" who believes God won't allow climate to change due to man's actions?
Seriously, Nomander? Come on......
Science isn't a topic there Zack, it is a process and you seem to be evading the point which was him evading the points made in order to attack the character of the person stating them. I know they don't teach logic or science in those liberal arts degrees or.. well... those "Environmental" science degrees, but what that means is that he is ignoring the points of the argument in order to defame the maker in hopes of avoiding having to deal with the points made.
I know, I know... in the college elite education of today, they teach that one is right by their position, not by the content of their argument. Its hard stuff, but hey... you have a piece of paper right? At least paper can be used for many things... Especially in those cases where... you run out. /wink
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.
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.
