Lake Mead and Climate Change

[Into the Night]

wow, yeah. Like, every journal ever published.

You don't get to quote every journal published. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I'd forgotten just exactly how much of a fuckwit you really are, so back on ignore.

For all the good it does.

 

[Into the Night]

and the vast majority of those do research paid for by Big Oil and it's affiliates. Many were actually former Big Oil employees. Who'd a thunk it?

Science has no politics. It doesn't care about 'big oil' (whatever THAT is!).

 

[Into the Night]

Lost the train of thought here. Your point?

He already made it. He hates successful corporations.

 

[Into the Night]

Managing the weather has always been a weak point.

Not possible to manage the weather.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
and the vast majority of those do research paid for by Big Oil and it's affiliates. Many were actually former Big Oil employees. Who'd a thunk it?

Lost the train of thought here. Your point?

There is always the claim by the "climate change deniers" that the vast majority of scientific evidence proves that mankind has little if any affect on the climate. But if one does a little digging, you find out that the studies and scientists they point to are as I previously stated. Of course, bias in research according to the deniers only occurs when there is proof that climate change exists and mankind is a pivotal factor.

 

[BidenPresident]

There is always the claim by the "climate change deniers" that the vast majority of scientific evidence proves that mankind has little if any affect on the climate. But if one does a little digging, you find out that the studies and scientists they point to are as I previously stated. Of course, bias in research according to the deniers only occurs when there is proof that climate change exists and mankind is a pivotal factor.

Thanks for clarification. As far as I know, there is universal consensus on man made climate change.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
There is always the claim by the "climate change deniers" that the vast majority of scientific evidence proves that mankind has little if any affect on the climate. But if one does a little digging, you find out that the studies and scientists they point to are as I previously stated. Of course, bias in research according to the deniers only occurs when there is proof that climate change exists and mankind is a pivotal factor.

Thanks for clarification. As far as I know, there is universal consensus on man made climate change.

True, but with the willful ignorance and myopic listening/reading attitude of our resident right wing wonks, that consensus doesn't exist...fake/bias news by America's industrial/economic competitors, according to them. Pathetic.

 

[BidenPresident]

True, but with the willful ignorance and myopic listening/reading attitude of our resident right wing wonks, that consensus doesn't exist...fake/bias news by America's industrial/economic competitors, according to them. Pathetic.

Consensus of scientists. I don't care what dumb people say.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Nothing new, the BBC might as well be an offshoot of Greenpiss. It is a publically funded body and has no business spouting contentious greenwash, hopefully they'll appoint a new Hercules to clean out the Aegean Stables.

Rowlatt Labelled As Campaigner By BBC Colleagues
By Paul Homewood

Too left wing even by BBC standards, holy shit!

The BBC’s climate editor has been labelled a “campaigner” by colleagues after he was found in breach of editorial rules for the second time in less than six months.

Justin Rowlatt, the BBC’s first climate editor, was spoken to by executives after he reported misleading claims about extreme weather in a Panorama documentary last November.

An investigation by the BBC executive complaints unit (ECU) found that the programme wrongly stated that weather-related deaths were increasing and that Madagascar was on the brink of the world’s first climate-induced famine.

“The Justin Rowlatt stuff is grim. These are not ‘mistakes’; he’s a campaigner,” one BBC source said. Another person said, despite the ruling against Rowlatt, campaign-like reporting had become more permissible at the BBC amid the climate emergency (sic).

Unfortunately the rest is behind a paywall, but you get the drift.

It is a fact that the BBC Environmental Department has to all intents and purposes gone rogue in recent years. It believes that it is immune from normal BBC editorial standards. It appears that others in the BBC are getting fed up with their self righteousness.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...att-labelled-as-campaigner-by-bbc-colleagues/

 

[cancel2 2022]

True, but with the willful ignorance and myopic listening/reading attitude of our resident right wing wonks, that consensus doesn't exist...fake/bias news by America's industrial/economic competitors, according to them. Pathetic.

Argument from Authority, a well recognised logical fallacy.

On Evaluating Arguments from Consensus

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553

 

[Into the Night]

There is always the claim by the "climate change deniers" that the vast majority of scientific evidence

I assume you mean deniers of the Church of Global Warming. Science isn't evidence.

proves

Science has no proofs.

that mankind has little if any affect on the climate.

Climate has no values associated with it. It cannot change. I assume you mean 'global warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

But if one does a little digging, you find out that the studies

Science isn't a study or a research.

and scientists

Science isn't scientists or any group of scientists. It is not any degree, license, title, credential, or any other blessing by government.

they point to are as I previously stated.

You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

Of course, bias in research

Science has no politics. Science isn't a research.

according to the deniers only occurs when there is proof

Science has no proofs.

that climate change exists

Climate change exists as a religious artifact. It is used as a synonym for the term 'global warming', also a religious artifact.

and mankind is a pivotal factor.

The Church of Global Warming has already stated this. Sorry dude, man has no power to control the weather or the temperature Earth. It is not possible to even measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for clarification. As far as I know, there is universal consensus on man made climate change.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Consensus is only used in religion and government.

I assume you mean 'global warming' for 'climate change'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

True, but with the willful ignorance and myopic listening/reading attitude of our resident right wing wonks, that consensus doesn't exist...fake/bias news by America's industrial/economic competitors, according to them. Pathetic.

Consensus does exist. It is core to any religion and for some governments. It is not used in science.

Science has no politics. It has no religion. It is not related to any economy.

The ignorance is yours. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as statistical mathematics.

 

[BidenPresident]

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Consensus is only used in religion and government.

I assume you mean 'global warming' for 'climate change'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

you're a fucking idiot and probably mentally ill

 

[Into the Night]

Consensus of scientists. I don't care what dumb people say.

Science isn't scientists. It does not use consensus. You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[BidenPresident]

Science isn't scientists. It does not use consensus. You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

back to ignore you brain dead buffoon

 

[Into the Night]

Argument from Authority, a well recognised logical fallacy.

Not a logical fallacy. He is attempted to speak for people besides himself. That's an Omniscience fallacy.

On Evaluating Arguments from Consensus

Consensus is not used in science. It is only used in religions and some governments.

 

[Into the Night]

you're a fucking idiot and probably mentally ill

Psychoquackery. Insult fallacy. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

back to ignore you brain dead buffoon

Argument of the Stick fallacy. Insult fallacy. No argument presented.