EPA drafts rule to strike down landmark climate finding

[Napoleon]

The whole premise on greenhouse is based on quack science. If man can't handle .01 degree temp delta how does he survive the four seasons?

Our species has somehow managed to survive at least two ice ages and subsequent global warming. But somehow we’re all going to die of global cooling..err..global warming…err…climate change because AOC and Greta Thunberg say so.

 

[Mr Person]

The whole premise on greenhouse is based on quack science. If man can't handle .01 degree temp delta how does he survive the four seasons?

The problem is that CO2 has risen at the rate assumed in their high CO2 production estimate while climate has risen at the rate predicted by the low CO2 production estimate.

The end result of those two facts are that their assumed CO2 forcing level is far too high.

Uhuh. And vaccines are a lie. And we never landed on the moon. And the Earth is flat. And Bush controlled the planes with remote controls and everyone in them and their families were actors, and he did it to get us into Iraq to steal the oil and nevermind we didn't steal the oil and and and .....and you are the holder of the secret flame of knowledge that the world scrambles to silence!

Any day now, MAGA will be demanding to burn scientists at the stake...

 

[Lursa]

But people should listen to anti-science propagandists like yourself?

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Issac Asimov

 

[Napoleon]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Issac Asimov

That’s a nice irony from a guy who is only known for writing science fiction books.

 

[jmotivator]

My argument is that the near universal scientific consensus is correct.

And the above statement is hilarious in ways you can't understand.

At one point there was near universal consensus that the sun orbited the Earth. Head Count fallacy isn't a scientific argument.

Your argument is shitting out any denialist thoughts that occur to you at the time.

Nah, and you invectives in place of reasonable discussion is, as always, noted.

 

[reinaert]

That’s a nice irony from a guy who is only known for writing science fiction books.

Biochemist.

 

[Napoleon]

Biochemist.

He made no contribution to the field of biochemistry. His only notable accomplishment was writing the science fiction Foundation series.

 

[reinaert]

He made no contribution to the field of biochemistry. His only notable accomplishment was writing the science fiction Foundation series.

He was professor of biochemistry in Boston and a working chemist during WW2.

I know you are never wrong, but you are wrong. Now comes twenty pages of napoleonic special pleading, so cool. Gonna scroll by the bullshit output you'll do instead of writing "my bad".

 

[Lursa]

That’s a nice irony from a guy who is only known for writing science fiction books.

Your idea of "known" is your personal limitation.

Science & Technology

• Understanding Physics (3 volumes)
• Asimov's New Guide to Science
• The Collapsing Universe: The Story of Black Holes
• The Exploding Suns: The Secrets of the Supernovas
• The Genetic Code
• The Universe: From Flat Earth to Quasar
• Only a Trillion
• Building Blocks of the Universe
• The Double Planet

History & Culture

• Asimov's Chronology of the World
• Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery
• The Roman Empire
• The Birth of the United States
• The Dark Ages
• The Near East: 10,000 Years of History
• The Shaping of England
• The Golden Door: The United States from 1865 to 1918

Essays & Reflections

• The Roving Mind
• Science, Numbers, and I
• Fact and Fancy
• View from a Height
• Adding a Dimension
• Of Time and Space and Other Things
• The Tragedy of the Moon
• Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright
• The Road to Infinity

Biology & Chemistry

• The Chemicals of Life
• Inside the Atom
• Life and Energy
• The Human Body: Its Structure and Operation
• The Human Brain: Its Capacities and Functions
• A Short History of Biology
• A Short History of Chemistry

This is just a partial list, he wrote over 280 non-fiction books.

pwnd

 

[Jetboogieman]

But when you argue that you should listen to someone other than them they have simply proven that they don't trust their own judgment, and so we also shouldn't trust their judgement in outside sources either.

This assertion is ****ing BONKERS and makes no sense.

The vast majority of people are not experts in ANYTHING let alone being able to "trust their own judgement" when it comes to which science is real or not.

There is such a thing as heathly skepticism and questioning authority and admittedly sometimes those lines can be tricky depending on EXACTLY what we're talking about.

And then there's this, that leads to people being Anti-Vax and Anti-science to the point of harm and death.

This assertion makes it so easy to explain why people like you end up supporting the biggest idiot to ever be President.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

I never said people should listen to me. But when you argue that you should listen to someone other than them they have simply proven that they don't trust their own judgment, and so we also shouldn't trust their judgement in outside sources either.

Why exactly are you here lol

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Our species has somehow managed to survive at least two ice ages and subsequent global warming. But somehow we’re all going to die of global cooling..err..global warming…err…climate change because AOC and Greta Thunberg say so.

Our species survived the black death. I guess it wasnt that bad after all.

 

[jmotivator]

Why exactly are you here lol

To argue my point. Others are here to argue that they aren't capable of forming their own arguments and they are showing that they are really good at it.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

To argue my point. Others are here to argue that they aren't capable of forming their own arguments and they are showing that they are really good at it.

Sounds like you are here for mental masturbation tbh

 

[reinaert]

To argue my point. Others are here to argue that they aren't capable of forming their own arguments and they are showing that they are really good at it.

The boiling hot liquid contempt^ is something to behold.

 

[Threegoofs]

And the above statement is hilarious in ways you can't understand.

At one point there was near universal consensus that the sun orbited the Earth. Head Count fallacy isn't a scientific argument.

Tell the oncologist that when you get diagnosed with cancer.

Tell the structural engineer that when he tells you that bridge youre going to drive across isnt safe.

Tell the toxicologist that when he sees you've got high levels of lead in your bloodstream. (thats a hint - you might want to get tested).

Nah, and you invectives in place of reasonable discussion is, as always, noted.

I used to think there might be reasonable discussion around this topic with you, but after hearing statements like 'scientists dont know what theyre talking about like I do', I've kinda given up on the 'reasonable' end. Prove me wrong.

 

[jmotivator]

This assertion is ****ing BONKERS and makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Your position, and most of those on your side, are simply Appeal to Authority and Head Count Fallacy arguments and nothing more.

The vast majority of people are not experts in ANYTHING let alone being able to "trust their own judgement" when it comes to which science is real or not.

If you find ONE expert that disagrees with the consensus then the existence of a consensus is no longer a valid scientific argument. It's a logical fallacy.

There is such a thing as heathly skepticism and questioning authority and admittedly sometimes those lines can be tricky depending on EXACTLY what we're talking about.

Skepticism is the life blood of science. Without skepticism there is no science.

And then there's this, that leads to people being Anti-Vax and Anti-science to the point of harm and death.

This is skepticism. It's not "anti-science", your logical fallacy is anathema to science.

This assertion makes it so easy to explain why people like you end up supporting the biggest idiot to ever be President.

*sigh* And you close with a false assertion.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Your position, and most of those on your side, are simply Appeal to Authority and Head Count Fallacy arguments and nothing more

I guess we should just take an anonymous internet poster's word for it

 

[ScrambledEggs]

It makes perfect sense. Your position, and most of those on your side, are simply Appeal to Authority and Head Count Fallacy arguments and nothing more.



If you find ONE expert that disagrees with the consensus then the existence of a consensus is no longer a valid scientific argument. It's a logical fallacy.



Skepticism is the life blood of science. Without skepticism there is no science.



This is skepticism. It's not "anti-science", your logical fallacy is anathema to science.



*sigh* And you close with a false assertion.

Did you know evolution isnt real either and the earth is only 6000 years old. Trust me bro. I read some scientist that said that

 

[jmotivator]

Tell the oncologist that when you get diagnosed with cancer.

When you are diagnosed with a deadly disease you should always seek a second opinion. Your argument is like me getting a second opinion and you faultin me for thinking I know more than the doctor.

Tell the structural engineer that when he tells you that bridge youre going to drive across isnt safe.

Ironically curb stomping your own argument. Endless cases of structural disasters that occurred because the consensus didn't listen to the loan objecting voice.

Tell the toxicologist that when he sees you've got high levels of lead in your bloodstream. (thats a hint - you might want to get tested).

And you have gone for the direct insult now.

I used to think there might be reasonable discussion around this topic with you, but ...

You'd have to first be reasonable.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

When you are diagnosed with a deadly disease you should always seek a second opinion. Your argument is like me getting a second opinion and you faultin me for thinking I know more than the doctor.



Ironically curb stomping your own argument. Endless cases of structural disasters that occurred because the consensus didn't listen to the loan objecting voice.



And you have gone for the moderator-actionable direct insult.



You'd have to first be reasonable.

You're just getting high off being a contrarian at all costs in this thread. Instead of simply admitting you dont know what you are talking about.

 

[jmotivator]

I guess we should just take an anonymous internet poster's word for it

That's the great thing about logic. It doesn't matter who makes the argument as long as it's valid, and my statement is valid.

Telling others to listen to your chosen experts = Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Arguing that you are right because the majority of Experts agree = Head Count Fallacy.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

That's the great thing about logic. It doesn't matter who makes the argument as long as it's valid, and my statement is valid.

Telling others to listen to your chosen experts = Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Arguing that you are right because the majority of Experts agree = Head Count Fallacy.

You can call it whatever you want. I will still laugh at you.

 

[jmotivator]

You can call it whatever you want. I will still laugh at you.

I called it what it is.

Also, you might be amazed by how little I care of your opinion of me.

 

[aociswundumho]

My argument is that the near universal scientific consensus is correct.

Consensus on an extremely politicized issue where the funding flows only one way and dissent is a career liability.

Your argument is shitting out any denialist thoughts that occur to you at the time.

Ah, "denialist" - the word meant to smear skeptics by lumping them in with holocaust deniers. How scientific of you.