Post 22
Let’s try and remember what this topic is about.
OK?
He just spoke at the UN yesterday, I think.
So he’s a climate scientist now?
Wow.
I’m at a loss. I’ve been having Interwebbie difficulties but it seems unlikely the error message changed.
All I can guess is that my brain truncated after “FXMastermind: This message is hidden because FXMastermind” – It seems like a complete sentence.
Where in the article does it state that human activity is responsible for recent warming?
It’s ironic that you should say that given that your own argument boils down to “I have a few patents which I won’t identify and therefore you should believe my lies.”
No, you did that when you used the same exact argument that they use. All I did was point out how it was the exact same argument that they use. Don’t want to be called out for using the same arguments that creationists use? I suggest you not use them.
No, I mean all creationists since even Intelligent Design proponents say the same thing. Bad science is not only for the Young earthers and climate change deniers, you know.
I didn’t mention religion even once. Care to quote me mentioning anything about religion?
For a second, let’s make believe this is all true, the question is, why bring it up? We’re talking about climate change.If there is a bad argument regarding animal husbandry, traffic control, school choice, abortion, gun control, the drinking age…whatever—why bring up that bad argument in a thread where the subject has nothing to do with it. The answer, of course, is precisely what I said. It’s simply an ad hominem attack dressed up with a big schnoz and glasses. It’s an attempt to insult the other side and quash debate. So, grow the fuck up. At least grow a pair of balls and admit what you’re doing, you dumb pussy.
What a disingenuous dolt you are. Are you truly unaware the Creationists believe what they do because of their religion?
It’s worse than I thought.
It’s just like Global Warming. It’s worse than you think.
I once thought that, but in reality I think it is that the believers read a constant stream of blog idiocy, slanted media stories, and due to sheer repetition, really stupid and wrong ideas get embedded so deep in their brains, they don’t even know it.
Stamos’ position seems to be that any argument along the lines of “You don’t know enough to be confident in your conclusion” is presumptively invalid since creationists make such an argument and they are obviously wrong.
So yes, his is pretty clearly a classic ad homenim approach.
Stamos, is it your view that “You don’t know enough to be confident in your conclusion” is generally not a valid argument? It’s a simple enough question but I highly doubt you will answer it.
So, climate change is just basically when the weather today is not the same as it was last here on this date.
Which basically means always.
You tell me. You brought it up when you used the same argument that creationists use. Why you decided to do that is not for me to guess.
Creationism in and of itself is not religion. Religion may motivate people to believe in creationism but creationism is not, in and of itself, a tenet of any faith. You also forget that people such as sociologist Steve Fuller are proponents of intelligent design yet are not religious.
But if you ignore the evidence (something you seem to enjoy doing) and really believe that bringing up creationism = bringing up religion, then I have to ask you again: Why did you bring it up?
cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: creationism
[ol]
[li]the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.[/li][li]another term for creation science.[/li][/ol]
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
You should tell that to Steve Fuller. He apparently didn’t get the memo.
Not only did he get the memo, he got a judgement as well.
Last October, in Dover, Pennsylvania, he too found himself giving evidence in court. But unlike Ruse, a champion of Darwinian evolution, Fuller took the stand as an expert witness in support of intelligent design. Fuller argued that ID - the idea that some systems are so complex they must have been designed by an intelligent agent - should be added to the science curriculum. He lost. The Dover judgment concluded ID was the progeny of creationism and couldn’t be taught as science. “The judge in the Dover case went back to the old standard of what the experts say,” says Fuller.
Wow, it seems the facts actually got an internet fuckhead to shut the hell up.
That is a rare event.
Believe it or not, I didn’t need you to clear up the fact that intelligent design is bad science. But thanks for the non sequitur.
You are truly an imbecile. Your stupidity above is akin to me talking about pinstripe business suits and you insisting that I brought the NY Yankees into the discussion.
There not enough :rolleyes:s
*We really need a roll-eyes that communicates the more of the “Are you serious, you poor, stupid, dumb fuck” vibe.
I’m not surprised that’s the best you can do.