Step 1) argue that climate change science disagrees with reality because consensus because it's biased. Argues pro-natural gas.
Step 2) argues that pro-natural gas page is pro-oil and thus invalid.
Step 3) calls everyone else an idiot.

Ok fuckface.

no evidence of increasing erratic weather.
even if there were, climate is not weather...the warmists have been telling us this for years...changing your story again?

yes,
now remind me again about whether the carbon tax was placed upon petroleum?

i suggest you get an education before you profess to be an expert on subjects you have not clue about

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I hear explanations of the cosmic microwave background including a force of anti gravity. I find this very interesting. One step closer to hover boards.

:lol::lol::lol: This irony is so delicious I could make a sandwich with it.

Spends 3 days getting lawyered in every thread he posts in. Calls other people 'clueless'.

I can't actually counter any points you've put forth so I'm going to accuse you of lying in an attempt to look like I've won the argument

actually in the USA they've at near record lows in the number of tornado and hurricane events over the past year or so
some parts of the planet are becoming more benign

the news media like to hype up fearmongering though

With records only going back 200 years in most countries, I think it is premature to conclude our behaviours are changing the earth.

The last few pages are proof that our national science curriculum is failing to teach people what science is and how it works.

The last few pages are proof that our national science curriculum is failing to teach people what science is and how it works.

He needs to understand that he can't replicate Sagan, nobody can.

If that's true, it would appear that some sort of change has happened to the climate :-k

I enjoyed your discussion in ep. 599 of the Neil Degrasse Tyson clip on science and "climate deniers". I just want to add an observation that I think you and John may have missed (or didn't have time to point out)--the language that Tyson and his interviewer use is religious language.

Tyson says: "Science is not there for you to cherry-pick. It's true whether or not you believe in it. You can decide not to believe in it but that doesn't change the reality."

As a Christian, I recognize this as faith language, particularly used in apologetics. I have heard and read arguments
and sermons just like this: "[The Bible] is not there for you to cherry-pick.it's true whether or not you believe in it."

I submit that science as a whole-with no distinction between fields of study, some of which are more theoretical than not-is being positioned as a religion, with scientists as modern-day prophets. As technology and science become more complicated, so that, as the old quotation goes, they seem more like magic, belief in science looks more like faith. You and I have not done any experiments or studies, or seen any scientific results; we trust (or don't trust J ) what the researchers tell us-and not even that, what the media tells us the researchers have found. We as a culture have come to believe that the scientists, with their many educational degrees and arcane jargon that only the privileged few understand, are the truth seekers and truth tellers.

This has to be frustrating to scientists who truly do want to seek truth and who know how scientific inquiry should work-not by consensus or by adhering to a belief system, but by being open to the possibility of your theories being proved wrong by the next round of experiments. Today, though, the media gives "science says" or "a scientific study has proved"
the same weight as "God says" or "The Bible/Koran/Torah says.." had for the faithful in centuries past.

That means that you and John and all of us listeners, as science skeptics or "deniers," are the modern-day heretics. When does the stake burning begin?

And now the Liberals want to tweak it even more, a political party that denounces things like Global Warming.

-PB

I enjoyed your discussion in ep. 599 of the Neil Degrasse Tyson clip on science and "climate deniers". I just want to add an observation that I think you and John may have missed (or didn't have time to point out)--the language that Tyson and his interviewer use is religious language.

Tyson says: "Science is not there for you to cherry-pick. It's true whether or not you believe in it. You can decide not to believe in it but that doesn't change the reality."

As a Christian, I recognize this as faith language, particularly used in apologetics. I have heard and read arguments
and sermons just like this: "[The Bible] is not there for you to cherry-pick.it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Anyone been watching Cosmos with NdT?

I've always been a Tyson fan, but I think he is trying a bit too hard to capture the same tone as Sagan rather than making it his own. He needs to understand that he can't replicate Sagan, nobody can.

The key difference between these two sentences is that science is based on evidence.

The Bible is not.

Didnt realise global warming required capitalisation. I guess Global Warming means better funding.

Edited by thupercoach: 21/3/2014 02:05:32 PM

Less arguing please and more cool videos to make us feel even smaller, worthless and shows how much we are yet to discover in the scheme of things please. I love this shit.

This. Well said.

Ricecrackers.

If you want to stir shit, go create your own anti-science thread/pro climate change sceptic thread. I've been sucked into debating you too many times. You and Afro can go toe-to-toe there. ;)

You're such a clever man, notor. :roll: