|
|
Ragnar17
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
|
 |
January 04, 2013, 11:28:22 PM |
|
Should you pay his medical bill for the stroke?
Naaa he deserved it
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 02:48:06 AM |
|
This is hilarious. I actually enjoy it when you guys do this. First of all, it shows that you guys use as your sources for information of climate change sites linked with libertarian think tanks. Why is that? There are neutral sites which report on science.
Your buddy Anthony Watts is a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, shown time and again to be biased against climate science and climate change for political reasons (property rights in fact - note the editor of Environment and Climate News is an advocate for property rights and has zero credentials with regard to the environment or climate science), not scientific honesty. Funding, of course, comes from Exxon/Mobil. Also, note that Anthony Watts holds no credentials with regard to climate science, and readily admits so. What he does is trawl the Internet for that one nugget among thousands of peer reviewed papers that supports what his Libertarian mindset wants to see. Biased reporting, indeed.
As for me having a stroke, sorry, no. I'm glad you made the post though, as it confirms my accusations that libertarians must have their science news strained through a filter designed to only let news through which meets their libertarian perspective. Kind of like a religion.
Climate science is to libertarians like Evolution is to Creationists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 02:58:41 AM
Last edit: January 05, 2013, 03:21:23 AM by FirstAscent |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address yours. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. Furthermore, I have recommended two good books to you, one of which demonstrates the value of climate science by way of various EPA projects which have had measurable success, along with many other things, and an excellent book on climate change in general. You declined to read them, so I decline to read your article. Furthermore, I noted a comment you made in another thread about climate change and its relation to the Sun. Where did you get such information? Do you really understand the causes of ice ages? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:21:23 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:23:49 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:28:47 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. |
|
|
|
Dalkore
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:29:17 AM |
|
The source is almost more important that the data. You need to tackle bias first before I start seriously considering the evidence. I am not going to start reviewing the data about gun control from the Brady Center before fully contemplating its source. I think the climate debate has been greatly overblown but I do think we are having an effect on the planet. The amount is where I have not determined from available data. |
Hosting: Low as $60.00 per KW - LinkTransaction List: jayson3 +5 - ColdHardMetal +3 - Nolo +2 - CoinHoarder +1 - Elxiliath +1 - tymm0 +1 - Johnniewalker +1 - Oscer +1 - Davidj411 +1 - BitCoiner2012 +1 - dstruct2k +1 - Philj +1 - camolist +1 - exahash +1 - Littleshop +1 - Severian +1 - DebitMe +1 - lepenguin +1 - StringTheory +1 - amagimetals +1 - jcoin200 +1 - serp +1 - klintay +1 - -droid- +1 - FlutterPie +1
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:31:31 AM |
|
In fact, I'll require the following from you before we continue:
1. Reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data.
2. Explain your understanding of the cause for ice ages.
3. Summarize the findings of the paper you have cited, as I have, at your request, summarized edge effects, trophic cascades, island biogeography, the value of biodiversity to humanity, and ecosystem services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:32:23 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:37:38 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy? |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:42:13 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy? Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:50:50 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy? Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. Ah. So, basically, Your logical fallacy is... (particularly stupid, since I'm not even the one you're accusing of committing a fallacy) And, three strikes, you're out. Thanks for playing. |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 03:55:34 AM |
|
If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on. it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data. How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas? Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data. Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading. Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that. How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy? Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. Ah. So, basically, Your logical fallacy is... (particularly stupid, since I'm not even the one you're accusing of committing a fallacy) And, three strikes, you're out. Thanks for playing. I've never clicked on those fallacy links, just for your future reference. Anyway, please address the following: 1. Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics. 2. Explain your understanding of the cause for ice ages, as I have indications from another recent thread in which you have participated in that you're relatively misinformed and devoid of much knowledge in that domain. 3. Summarize the findings of the paper you have cited, as I have, at your various requests in the past, summarized edge effects, trophic cascades, island biogeography, the value of biodiversity to humanity, and ecosystem services. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 04:23:29 AM |
|
lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.
Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 04:37:38 AM |
|
lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.
Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.
You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past. Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites? |
|
|
|
|
|
CoinDiver
|
|
January 05, 2013, 04:39:52 AM |
|
I laugh when statist refer to state funded sources as neutral.
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 04:46:58 AM |
|
lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.
Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.
You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past. Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites? First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about. Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy. If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more. |
|
|
|
|
