Good article about scientific consensus

Post Reply New Topic

Just to let you know, that in some cases that is acceptable.

And I would have though you were free from fallacies here (climate scientology?) and "always good on a resume." doesn't seem that logically valid either, does it?.

Mathew 7:3 comes to mind.


You didn't addressed the argument, just the attack, and by selecting not to adress the argument, that can be a convenient thing to do.


I am a layman, very much, towards the issue regarding climate change, given that I am really ignorant of the aspects of it, so I can't really say a thing against it or in favor of it, other than let the experts do their work. Also, I would tend to give LKL more credibility than you on this.

Greenblue, why should it be required of me, and often seemingly me alone in such types of debate, that I must address all points? It oughtn't. I have as much freedom to speak as anyone else, and that includes selective response if I so chose. Especially in response to others who never fail to criticize when I make an error and near invariably fail to acknowledge when I make a valid point, they should not expect more from another than that which they themselves provide.

well, I said "it can be", I really can't know why people don't address every single sentence from a post, but sometimes I get curious.

The issue of "why", for me would be that I get tired of dealing with another person pestering me ad naseum, or sometimes just due to tiredness alone.

'Keet, the reason I have jumped on you here is not because you have made errors; it is because you made an error and then insisted you were right and the entire field of climate scientists were not only wrong, but delusional, after you were corrected several times.
You ARE capable of debating in a civil fashion - the empirical baramins vs. taxons thread is an example of this - but you are not displaying it here.

It is not error to say that having absolute zero as a reference frame is valid. Try using anything other than Kelvin when applying the laws of gas dynamics. Celsius is based around the freezing and boiling points of water, and water is a necessary component of life, certainly, however the total amount of energy absorbed from the sun is what affects the temperature of the planets. Absolute zero is the absolute minimum and everything above that is energy that we would not receive if it were not put forth. As such, the change in temperature of the planet ought to be regarded according to its alteration from the minimum value and not just an arbitrary value. Such would allow a more overall perspective of the amount of change it is possible for humankind just to due merely by happenstance. Since if we can affect our planet's average temperature without even trying, then we could certainly affect the average surface temperature of other planets if we intentionally set out to do so. It is a hopeful prospect that we may, one day, actually be able to terraform other worlds so that they may be habitable for us.

Your argument could just as well be applied to any science, from hydrocarbon cracking to iron smelting to human physiology. Do you know why it isn't? Because it makes no f*****g sense to do so. Chemists cracking crude don't use Kelvin, and neither do doctors; the latter, in fact, don't even use zero on the centigrade scale. They use normal body temperature, and sometimes they even use degrees F.

In America the Fahrenheit scale is often used in medicine, though Celsius might as readily be used. If you like the increments on the Fahrenheit scale, perhaps you might not object to the use of the Rankine scale in regard to climate change?