[PluggyRug]

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Come to think of it can one of you guys who believes there's all these, what you want to call, "climate scientists" around and only they are capable of producing anything credible in the field explain to me where your claim of 93% consensus comes from. Give me the fields of the guys producing what you'd like to call "the science" on that one.

And no, Fifer questions about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have nothing to do with doubters of evolution, much as some would like to conflate the two for deflection when they start to realize they're trapped in their bad arguments on the climate question.

So you are saying that the a 'petition' signed by a bunch of guys who are not really experts on a subject is different from a 'petition' signed by a bunch of guys who are not really experts on a subject. All righty then. Let's 'Teach the Controversy' then.

[N_Fiddledog]

No. I was saying if you're going to be talking about standards for one side of the argument as Sunny was, those standards need to apply for both sides of the argument. Otherwise whoever is making such an argument should get off his high-horse.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No. I was saying if you're going to be talking about standards for one side of the argument as Sunny was, those standards need to apply for both sides of the argument. Otherwise whoever is making such an argument should get off his high-horse.

And here all I was doing was pointing out the similarities between the two petitions . No ladder needed, at least from this side

[N_Fiddledog]

Which two petitions are those?

Oh wait...I see now. I didn't scroll to the bottom of your link the first time.

Somebody is doing a petition wanting both creation theory and evolution theory to be taught if one is. Something like that anyway.

And I take it your point is comparing that to how both sides of the argument on what constitutes a credible opinion in the climate debate is the same thing.

With yours you're talking about two seperate theories and should one be taught if the other is.

My point with Sunny is if he wants to set standards as to who can present opinions and be considered credible in the climate debate those same standards half to apply for both sides of the argument.

Otherwise you're just saying "Oh look at me. I'm so high above you even though we're both doing the same thing. It's just that it's wrong when you do it."

I'm not sure now. You may have something like a point.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Otherwise you're just saying "Oh look at me. I'm so high above you even though we're both doing the same thing. It's just that it's wrong when you do it."
.

We’re doing the same thing???
Let me think about that for a moment.

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm beginning to see a line myself. The conclusion on credibility of one or the other in the creation vs evolution petition is external. It's a conclusion you come to after the debate then you apply it.

The credibility in the climate discussion begins before the debate happens. You decide to judge both sides by the same standards before you have the discussion. If you're telling me an engineer can't be taken seriously then don't be producing a Librarian and expecting me to nod in agreement at everything she says.

With yours they're saying the petition to attach equal credibility to both creation and evolutionary theories is the goal.

I'm saying equal application of what's considered credible within the climate discussion itself is the reasonable method while having the discussion.

It's a fun think but it's just round and round for no reason. The "climate emergency" debate, starting with is there such an emergency, has nothing to do with biological evolution.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm beginning to see a line myself. The conclusion on credibility of one or the other in the creation vs evolution petition is external. It's a conclusion you come to after the debate then you apply it.

The credibility in the climate discussion begins before the debate happens. You decide to judge both sides by the same standards before you have the discussion. If you're telling me an engineer can't be taken seriously then don't be producing a Librarian and expecting me to nod in agreement at everything she says.

With yours they're saying the petition to attach equal credibility to both creation and evolutionary theories is the goal.

I'm saying equal application of what's considered credible within the climate discussion itself is the reasonable method while having the discussion.

It's a fun think but it's just round and round for no reason. The "climate emergency" debate, starting with is there such an emergency, has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Hey, my mom was a librarian.
NOBODY expects you will ever to agree with anyone except your 'side.'
And Duh... the climate debate is not the evolution debate... thanks for that.

And... of course only if you feel like it, check out Answers on Genesis (web site or YouTube) for their take on climate change.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

And Duh... the climate debate is not the evolution debate... thanks for that.

No problem. It's a head scratcher why so many refuse to notice the obvious.

Comparing the Climate debate to the evolution/intelligent design one to take advantage of prejudice against creationists is nothing more than an inaccurate, in fact worthless analogy. The one has nothing to do with the other.

Such feeble attempts at hopeful diversion from the actual topic are just silly.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

And Duh... the climate debate is not the evolution debate... thanks for that.

No problem. It's a head scratcher why so many refuse to notice the obvious.

Comparing the Climate debate to the evolution/intelligent design one to take advantage of prejudice against creationists is nothing more than an inaccurate, in fact worthless analogy. The one has nothing to do with the other.

Such feeble attempts at hopeful diversion from the actual topic are just silly.

Actually, there is quite a bit of similarity between the two. In both the ‘denial ‘ side ‘argues that the data of the ‘scientific ‘ side can be looked at in ways that allow conclusions different from those of the mainstream scientific group, both argue that some horrid entity is paying all those scientists to discover stuff to undermine the economy/moral fibre of our society. Both also have a bunch of ‘scientists ‘ working for them who make claims disputed by the other sides scientists. So,,,the two ‘arguments’ may be on different topics but they have a number of interesting parallels.

Fun but disturbing!

[N_Fiddledog]

Denying what? Do you mean denying the cult of climate doomsayers prophesying End-times.

What "Scientific side?" Specifically what science are you talking about? You mean model predictions? If that's what your perverting the word "Science" to mean then yeah, I'm denying computer models as a reliable tool of prophesy.

And if you or yours were ever brave enough to specifically state that's what you mean when you talk about "denial" and pervert the definition of "science" to mean prophesy of doom, I think you'd find you don't represent any kind of consensus "mainstream," scientific or anything else.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Denying what? Do you mean denying the cult of climate doomsayers prophesying End-times.

What "Scientific side?" Specifically what science are you talking about? You mean model predictions? If that's what your perverting the word "Science" to mean then yeah, I'm denying computer models as a reliable tool of prophesy.

And if you or yours were ever brave enough to specifically state that's what you mean when you talk about "denial" and pervert the definition of "science" to mean prophesy of doom, I think you'd find you don't represent any kind of consensus "mainstream," scientific or anything else.

Denying what? Denying that the earth's climate is changing due to human caused increased levels of CO2! Mostly it's the media spouting off about doom. I personally don't see the end of times coming; just that life will be quite a bit harder for us in the future. I guess you are going to tell us that's because of Sores.

We all know it can't be because of the actions of Big Oil, their ads tell us everything they do is to improve our lives.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Denying what? Denying that the earth's climate is changing due to human caused increased levels of CO2!

Nobody is denying climate changes and I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who doesn't think there is some anthropogenic effect. Not necessarily CO2 but I've never read anybody who was trying to convince me there wasn't a classroom experiment that could measure a warming effect of CO2 in an enclosed environment. I believe it's 1 degree per doubling of CO2. You won't be melting the Antarctic or even Greenland with that even if there are no feedbacks balancing things out (which some think might turn out to be the case.)

The questions have always been more like - how much effect in the chaotic system of real world Earth? Enough to matter? If so what can be done about it? The answer to that last one is generally not much and considering who's most often claiming to have the answers you'd have to worry the solution would most likely be worse than the problem. Adapting might be be more beneficial even if you're a big believer in climate catastrophe.

But as far as what you're worrying about, stop worrying. Nobody I know of is "denying" climate change or man appears to have some effect. Your wasting your made up slur. There are no "deniers" if you think that's what's being denied.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Denying what? Denying that the earth's climate is changing due to human caused increased levels of CO2!

Nobody is denying climate changes and I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who doesn't think there is some anthropogenic effect - not necessarily CO2. Although I've never read anybody who was trying to convince me there wasn't a classroom experiment that could measure a warming effect of CO2 in an enclosed environment. I believe it's 1 degree per doubling of CO2. You won't be melting the Antarctic or even Greenland with that.

The questions have always been more like - how much effect in the real world? Enough to matter? If so what can be done about it? The answer to that last one is generally not much and considering who's most often claiming to have the answers you'd have to worry the solution would most likely be worse than the cure. Might be be more beneficial even if you're a big believer in climate catastrophe.

But as far as what you're worrying about, stop worrying. Nobody I know of is "denying" that. Your wasting your made up slur. There are no "deniers" if you think that's what's being denied.

Wow, that's strange. Your post and what shows up when I press 'quote' don't match? odd! Oh well, ok. I'll just go with what's above.
Anyways, warming is happening, someone is going to have problems by it and we need to do something about it. That is, burn less stored carbon.
And??? Slur??? What slur??? Where???

[PluggyRug]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Anyways, warming is happening, someone is going to have problems by it and we need to do something about it. That is, burn less stored carbon.

Watch the video I posted above.