Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

global climate change that's caused by the earth's position relative to the sun

we are getting closer to it.

It's relevant because that's where people like you end up.

What's the connection between OWS and scientific literacy? Any response to the rest of my post?

Jumped to conclusion-again!

 

[Sandvol]

What's the connection between OWS and scientific literacy? Any response to the rest of my post?

The connection between you and OWS is your psychological state.

 

[BartW]

The connection between you and OWS is your psychological state.

Specifically?

 

[Sandvol]

Specifically?

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

 

[BartW]

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

Specific examples? Nice irrelevant wiki copypasta. Try constructing a coherent thought linking science with OWS, or save us the facepalm and get back on topic. Do you have any comment on the rest of my quoted post? Any response to my previous questions? I’ll take continued deflections as affirmation you still have zero rebuttals.

From your troll fail above I will concede #1. I’m unusually persistent considering most scientifically literate people will not stoop to engaging you cranks. The nicest thing they can do is not say anything at all.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

Game set match. Nice of you to exhibit damn near all of these in your last post or3 to remove all doubt. Facepalm is on you Bart. Wake up. Now pot some gifs and pretty pictures and get abnormally upset.]

 

[BartW]

Game set match. Nice of you to exhibit damn near all of these in your last post or3 to remove all doubt. Facepalm is on you Bart. Wake up. Now pot some gifs and pretty pictures and get abnormally upset.]

Oh snap, attempted diss from the young earth creationist. The agony

Checkmate happened back in post #2640. It's funny and predictable how the anti-science folks flock to the science threads. Can't you thump your bibles somewhere else?

 

[tumscalcium]

Oh snap, attempted diss from the young earth creationist. The agony

Checkmate happened back in post #2640. ? It's funny and predictable how the anti-science folks flock to the science threads. Can't you thump your bibles somewhere else?

So, Chicken Little, what does your fear mongering have to do with Christianity?

 

[govols/cc]

Oh snap, attempted diss from the young earth creationist. The agony

Checkmate happened back in post #2640. It's funny and predictable how the anti-science folks flock to the science threads. Can't you thump your bibles somewhere else?

I guess believing that "SOMETHING" happened 14.5 billion years ago is more believable & somehow more credible than believing in a god.

 

[BartW]

So, Chicken Little, what does your fear mongering have to do with Christianity?

I’m not fear mongering, just bringing the scientific facts. I’m sorry if reality scares you. Global warming (and science in general) has nothing to do with religion. Science denialism is fueled by (among other factors) common christian mindsets such as anthropism, dominionism, and conflict thesis.

Admitting to being a creationist (especially the young earth variety) eliminates any remaining credibility.

 

[govols/cc]

I’m not fear mongering, just bringing the scientific facts. I’m sorry if reality scares you. Global warming (and science in general) has nothing to do with religion. Science denialism is fueled by (among other factors) common christian mindsets such as anthropism, dominionism, and conflict thesis.

Admitting to being a creationist (especially the young earth variety) eliminates any remaining credibility.

What science do you have to refute it? The Big Bang? That's more believable than a god or dies it conveniently explain a lot of "theories"?

 

[tumscalcium]

Admitting to being a creationist (especially the young earth variety) eliminates any remaining credibility.

I'm not religious. I was wondering why you kept bringing it up. I'm not scared of possible climate change. I'm not trying to scare people into thinking bad things will happen.

You ridicule creationists yet believe in crystal balls. Funny.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

“When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”

.

 

[MG1968]

Government uses peer review process to squash dissent | The Daily Caller

So here's how bart's precious peer review process works, a skeptic, or at least a scientist open-minded enough to know that absolutes are dangerous assumptions, wants to publish a paper that contradicts the "settled science" mantra. This scientist's "peers" are all alarmists like Bart and his professors at UT. Because the scientist's findings contradict current orthodoxy, his work and findings are rejected.

There's your conspiracy, folks. It doesn't involve moon landings, DDT, JFK, or any nonsense propagated by the Art Bells and Alex Joneses of the world. These are learned men and women who's egos are too big to allow dissent from their chosen faith.

 

[BartW]

What science do you have to refute it? The Big Bang? That's more believable than a god or dies it conveniently explain a lot of "theories"?

Aside from denying the big bang creationists also deny evolution. Young earth creationists deny just about every facet of reality. Neither evolution nor the big bang has any implication regarding the existence of god(s).

I'm not religious. I was wondering why you kept bringing it up. I'm not scared of possible climate change. I'm not trying to scare people into thinking bad things will happen.

You ridicule creationists yet believe in crystal balls. Funny.

I’m not saying all science denialists are religious or vice versa. Hence the disclaimer “among other factors”.

Science has predictive power (one of the main distinctions from pseudoscience). No crystal ball necessary. I recognize the scientific consensus and ridicule science denialists.

 

[govols/cc]

Aside from denying the big bang creationists also deny evolution. Young earth creationists deny just about every facet of reality. Neither evolution nor the big bang has any implication regarding the existence of god(s).



I’m not saying all science denialists are religious or vice versa. Hence the disclaimer “among other factors”.

Science has predictive power (one of the main distinctions from pseudoscience). No crystal ball necessary. I recognize the scientific consensus and ridicule science denialists.

Ok so you can pick & choose & deny what you want to fit your argument?

 

[tumscalcium]

Ok so you can pick & choose & deny what you want to fit your argument?

Yep. That's his MO.

 

[BartW]

Ok so you can pick & choose & deny what you want to fit your argument?

Y'all sure can (and do) but it doesn't make you right. That's called cherrypicking, and it's one of the five characteristics of denialism. I don't know what you're trying to imply. My views are consistent with the scientific consensus.

 

[govols/cc]

Y'all sure can (and do) but it doesn't make you right. That's called cherrypicking, and it's one of the five characteristics of denialism. I don't know what you're trying to imply. My views are consistent with the scientific consensus.

It's selective science then because for just about every imaginable scientific study there is at least one to refute it.

 

[govols/cc]

You also confuse denialism with don't give a damn ism. Real or not there's nothing to be done about global warming. All your schoolin' has been a waste....like Trut's

 

[FLVOL69]

I’m not fear mongering, just bringing the scientific facts. I’m sorry if reality scares you. Global warming (and science in general) has nothing to do with religion. Science denialism is fueled by (among other factors) common christian mindsets such as anthropism, dominionism, and conflict thesis.

Admitting to being a creationist (especially the young earth variety) eliminates any remaining credibility.

$

 

[508mikey]

global warming to return next week -- mid teens/snow at the end March in Illinois, really?

 

[Orangeslice13]

global warming to return next week -- mid teens/snow at the end March in Illinois, really?

Its climate change now. Cold is the new hot.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Spring has sprung so the calender says? But winter says :finger3: to the USA.

 

[BartW]

It's selective science then because for just about every imaginable scientific study there is at least one to refute it.

False equivalence fallacy

You also confuse denialism with don't give a damn ism. Real or not there's nothing to be done about global warming. All your schoolin' has been a waste....like Trut's

It’s not about how many damns you give, it’s about your “debate” tactics.

"Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."

We can and inevitably will fight global warming by legislating carbon emissions reduction. Neither my career nor any other geoscientist’s depends on global warming. Your preference for ignorance over knowledge is pathetic.