Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is completely wrong and illogical. First of all you're changing topics again to man-made global warming. Secondly, there are numerous temperature series from different sources which all add up to a global warming trend. None of this data is seriously in doubt; it is questioned only by conspiracy theorists and wealth protectionists. I've seen peer-reviewed papers which question man-made causes of global warming, albeit with problems of their own, but I have yet to see any papers with even a veneer of scientific credibility which demonstrate a lack of global warming.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said as regards alleged global warming or alleged man-made global warming. i.e., not all thermometers show that the earth is warming and absolutely none of the thermometers measure any effect of this alleged man-made global warming.
When a conclusion is not valid or true, the cause can usually be found in the premises. Check your premises and pay particular attention to what is but your opinion versus what is fact. Just because you hold something to be sacred or even most likely or highly likely does not make it fact.
It is as though there's a click-bait tabloid stating that there's data that shows that it seems like the world is flat because when I look out the window it seems flat. Then you create a thread with a link to this, and state that since the world seems like it's flat, please provide the evidence that proves it is round. Some people roll their eyes and decide they're not going down this hole again, while others provide various evidence to you. You ignore pretty much all of it and just keep asking for the evidence.
Furthermore, you keep stating that the burden of proof is on us for maintaining that the planet is a sphere, which is well-established fact with mountains of consensus and evidence, not on you for claiming that it is flat, which you read on a tabloid news site.
You don't seem to understand that YOU are claiming a teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars.
It is as there's a click-bait tabloid stating that there's data that shows that it seems like the world is flat because when I look out the window it seems flat. Then you create a thread with a link to this, and state that since the world seems like it's flat, please provide the evidence that proves it is round. Some people roll their eyes and decide they're not going down this hole again, while others provide various evidence to you. You ignore pretty much all of it and just keep asking for the evidence.
Furthermore, you keep stating that the burden of proof is on us for maintaining that the planet is a sphere, which is well-established fact with mountains of consensus and evidence, not on you for claiming that it is flat, which you read on a tabloid news site.
You don't seem to understand that YOU are claiming a teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and
Mars.
I have never said, claimed or implied that the earth is flat. So don't pretend that I have. Instead, produce the evidence of what you claim by quoting me, exactly.
This is an perfect example of you claiming something (that simply does not exist), and the burden of proof is on you.
As I said, the maker of a claim or theory always has the burden of proof, always.
It is as there's a click-bait tabloid stating that there's data that shows that it seems like the world is flat because when I look out the window it seems flat. Then you create a thread with a link to this, and state that since the world seems like it's flat, please provide the evidence that proves it is round. Some people roll their eyes and decide they're not going down this hole again, while others provide various evidence to you. You ignore pretty much all of it and just keep asking for the evidence.
Furthermore, you keep stating that the burden of proof is on us for maintaining that the planet is a sphere, which is well-established fact with mountains of consensus and evidence, not on you for claiming that it is flat, which you read on a tabloid news site.
You don't seem to understand that YOU are claiming a teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars.
I suggest you reread and think about the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
Just because you hold something to be sacred or even most likely or highly likely does not make it fact.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said as regards alleged global warming or alleged man-made global warming. i.e., not all thermometers show that the earth is warming and absolutely none of the thermometers measure any effect of this alleged man-made global warming.
When a conclusion is not valid or true, the cause can usually be found in the premises. Check your premises and pay particular attention to what is but your opinion versus what is fact. Just because you hold something to be sacred or even most likely or highly likely does not make it fact.
Not every spot on Earth is warming at every moment, but the average temperature certainly is. My premise is supported by all the temperature data. Is all of science and reality and fact and human experience not sufficient proof? What proof do you need? Who has to say what or show what for you to believe the globe is warming? If 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrate the Earth is warming, is that enough for you? Does it have to be a million? Do you have to personally set up 2000 thermometers around the Earth and record them for a thousand years?
I'm just trying to figure out if it's even possible for you to believe in global warming, or if the idea is so outrageous to you that nothing can convince you (in which case I won't waste my time). You keep saying you need proof, but when shown proof you don't believe it, so what do you want?
I have never said, claimed or implied that the earth is flat.
It is an analogy. Just like the teapot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
As I said, the maker of a claim or theory always has the burden of proof, always.
Exactly. You have created a thread with the claim, supported only by your tabloid link, that seeks to overturn widely established fact. It's an extraordinary claim. Please support it with something other than the tabloid link. Thank you.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,925 times
Reputation: 2158
Like Nepenthe said, The Daily Mail is not really a credible source. You're looking for The Wall Street Journal, which is a highly reputable newspaper and happens to have a right wing bias, or possibly The Times of London, which is also owned by the owner of FOX News and is a credible right wing paper. The London Telegraph would be another choice, they are also credible and right wing.
Not every spot on Earth is warming at every moment, but the average temperature certainly is. My premise is supported by all the temperature data. Is all of science and reality and fact and human experience not sufficient proof? What proof do you need? Who has to say what or show what for you to believe the globe is warming? If 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrate the Earth is warming, is that enough for you? Does it have to be a million? Do you have to personally set up 2000 thermometers around the Earth and record them for a thousand years?
I'm just trying to figure out if it's even possible for you to believe in global warming, or if the idea is so outrageous to you that nothing can convince you (in which case I won't waste my time). You keep saying you need proof, but when shown proof you don't believe it, so what do you want?
I've previously stated that my standard of proof exceeds 99% certainty -- think proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, I've also said that I require clear and unyielding evidence that is relevant, competent and material that also highly reliable.
I've required this level of evidence over six + decades of evidence assessment measured against that standard.
Exactly. You have created a thread with the claim, supported only by your tabloid link, that seeks to overturn widely established fact. It's an extraordinary claim. Please support it with something other than the tabloid link. Thank you.
What you think I might do is not an analogy. I'm not sure if you know what an analogy is.
Likewise, Bertrand Russell's famous teapot (Russell's teapot) is a claim he made, not an analogy.
Moreover, you have but an opinion as to what you believe is a widely established fact, nothing more. Your opinion does not represent fact anywhere but in your mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
