Are we playing Questions? I’m not going to clarify my position further.
A lie, as this was posted before on the other pit thread:
boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247458&postcount=95
Moving goalposts, strawmen, insults and diversions, it’s what science is all about.
Here’s the quote from the post in question: “as the laws of physics are also involved you can start by falsifying Kirchoff’s law.”
The key words are, of course, “also” and “start by” – since the set-up is to again play the “we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing” card.
Apparently so. It tends to happen a lot of the time when I ask people reasonable questions and they evade them. I (often) ask more questions.
Probably because you are on the horns of a dilemma. You know perfectly well that nothing I have said on this issue is incorrect. But if you admit it, it shows that your bluster and insults were just that.
On the other hand, if you claim to disagree with something I have said, the next question is what exactly you disagree with. Which will be difficult to specify.
Your other choice is to claim that you didn’t understand my position. But the problem with that is it calls into question your arrogant and condescending attitude when you could have simply asked for clarification. Besides which, what I have said on this issue has been reasonably clear.
But suit yourself.
For the Religious Left, that is correct. Arguments are like soldiers and favored theories are like Home Turf. Both must be defended to the utmost without regards to their rightness or wrongness.
I would guess that most warmists won’t even concede that there’s any evidence out their which undermines their hypothesis.
So no reply to the science in that post.. that figures
And that is why everyone can see you are not capable of even noticing how inadecuate your starting point was. As mentioned, you can start by looking for the evidence to falsify that item, while it is just a part of it, it is one of the key parts. You will be then on your way to scientific glory.
Or just more whining…
This was aleready shown to be a lie, what it is clear is that no change and just repeating a discredited mantra will be enough for deniers.
But their efforts are only good enough for Nowhere land. As pointed beforea, no good suport for their lousy points has been put forward. And this is because any good support is discrediting themselves.
And you’ll be on your way to playing Lucy with the football: until you spell out how many parts there are, you can always name another: I falsify one, you name a second; I falsify that one, you name a third? I don’t mind you setting out as many criteria as you please – but you need to move from “one of the key parts” to naming all of the key parts.
(That said, I admit to being curious: are you saying that, if there’s no warming for decades – even centuries? – then your prediction of “warming” remains true so long as Kirchoff’s law remains true? That even decades of cooling wouldn’t falsify your prediction of “warming” because Kirchoff’s law remains true? Is that your modest prediction?)
What lousy points? I’m asking for your falsification criteria so I can make points; how can I put support forward until I know what evidence you think wouldn’t be consistent with your impossibly vague prediction?
It’s certainly a convenient way for you to avoid posting substance is to try for death by a thousand irritating questions. I mean, seriously, you read my post, and instead of responding it’s to ask me whether I found your writing ambiguous? Seriously, dude, you think that’s a reasonable follow-up?
Ah, now I understand why you are convinced AGW is a fraud: it’s because you believe you’re psychic. If you can reach the conclusion you just did based on my posts, you can reach any conclusion whatsoever.
Until you respond substantively, of course, all you’ll get from me is insults. Respond substantively to my two-posts-distant post, and we can continue this conversation until you again try for Death By A Thousand Trivial Questions.
I already did, it was the 10 human fingerprint points from skeptical science, as mentioned, it is easy to come up with falsifications for one of the items as I already pointed at.
Again, there has been more than 50 years of confirmation that it applies to CO2 in the atmosphere, most of the other lines of evidence will become really weak as soon this effect is falsified because it is a big part of the issue. Also if anyone can demonstrates that it is not human made CO2 what is increasing in the atmosphere. (Another easy to make falsification).
Of course it’s convenient. If you refuse to give me a simple yes or no as to whether you disagree with me on an issue; and you refuse to even give me a simple yes or no as to whether you understand my position on an issue, then why should I bother “posting substance”?
Of course. You dodged my simple yes or no question.
Seriously dude, if you refuse to give me a simple yes or no as to whether you disagree with me on an issue; and you refuse to even give me a simple yes or no as to whether you understand my position on an issue, then why should I bother “posting substance”?
This is actually pretty telling. You’re living in a fantasy world in which your Matlockian questions will force me to prove either that I think you’re right, or that I can’t explain where you’re wrong, or that I’m too stupid to understand you. My refusal to answer your questions plays into your fourth fantasy: that I’m a coward.
What we don’t see anywhere in your analysis is an interest in an honest discussion. That’s why, instead of responding to substantive answers to questions (questions that don’t easily lend themselves to yes or no answers), you play games. YOu want a fantasy.
THat said, here are your answers to the questions in your last post: I don’t care whether I disagree with you, because what your position is isn’t as interesting as a position put forth. So technically, no, I don’t disagree with you. There’s your first answer.
My second answer is no, I don’t understand your position. YOu think that’s on me. I disrespectfully disagree.
I think it’s not so much that you are a coward as that you don’t want to admit to yourself or to others that your earlier position didn’t make much sense.
Ok, so it would seem you concede that your “obvious fraud” standard is unworkable; that if evidence comes forward which contradicts a hypothesis one always needs to consider whether the entire hypothesis should be jettisoned; and that someones one should do just that.
If there are aspects of my position you do not understand, I think it would make more sense to politely request clarification rather than engage in insults and bluster.
Good grief. Didja not read the things that came before “I don’t disagree?” THey make it perfectly clear that I also don’t agree.
Meh, I already tried to reason before with b84, Left Hand of Dorkness he is just happy to remain in Nowhere Land.
This is why I didn’t want to offer yes/no answers to your questions: a yes or no is misleading. That’s why I gave elaborated answers.
Seems like a concession to me. But in any event, if you dispute any of those points, feel free to explain the basis of your disagreement.