Remember me
▼ Content

Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers



Page 3 of 3<123
16-10-2016 00:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8687)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Climate is more of a field than a single statistic.

It's a completely unfalsifiable religion. Thanks for hammering that point home.


.


IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: A field of science, as in "a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest."

Well, it's not science, but it is a religious dogma (and a particularly WACKY one at that! I used to think Hinduism was "out there" until Global Warming came along).

The important thing is that I was correct in assuming that you were using it as a field of study, like a religious scripture, and not something real that can be observed and measured.


.


I was only trying to show that a scientific field is not necessarily unreal.


Double negative. Better phrasing would be one of:

1) 'is not necessarily imaginary' or
2) 'is necessarily real'.

Double negatives should always be avoided in English. It is poor form and often results in different meanings than intended. Are you using case 1) or 2)?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-10-2016 00:19
16-10-2016 01:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, sorry, 1). (I'm an EFL, by the way, it's just a bit harder to avoid the subtler grammatical errors when you're typing instead of talking.)
16-10-2016 12:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8687)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, sorry, 1). (I'm an EFL, by the way, it's just a bit harder to avoid the subtler grammatical errors when you're typing instead of talking.)


As I suspected.


A field of study in science is a field of study about nature. Nature is a real thing. There is no 'imaginary' nature.

When a field of study fails to follow the requirements of the scientific method, it can certainly be accused of being imaginary, particularly when it tries to claim science where there is none.

Climate 'science' is one such field. 'Climatologists' is a fad degree offered by universities to make money (they don't call it the education biz for nothing!).

This degree is awarded to those who have taken some physics classes and then concentrated on climate as a thing that can somehow change.

Since climate cannot change, since there is no way to quantify that change, these people have gone into an imaginary field with a senseless title on their degrees. Yet, it pays money to enter this field, but the subjected 'researched' is imaginary as a scientific field.

There are already people who study the weather. We call them meteorologists. They can use real data (and a certain amount of guesswork!) to get us a weather report that is right enough to be useful most of the time.

Their work is like watching waves on the sea approach a shoreline. Doing that will allow you to predict with a certain accuracy when and where and how strong the wave will be when it reaches the shore.

These guesses are broad and filled with probabilities, but they can predict the roll of the magick dice often enough to get paid to do it.

Meanwhile the 'climatologist', is just another schmuck caught up in the whole Church of Global Warming thing.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2016 15:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:Ah, sorry, 1). (I'm an EFL, by the way, it's just a bit harder to avoid the subtler grammatical errors when you're typing instead of talking.)

What is your FL?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2016 18:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Ah, sorry, 1). (I'm an EFL, by the way, it's just a bit harder to avoid the subtler grammatical errors when you're typing instead of talking.)

What is your FL?


.


No, no, not English as a Second Language, that would be ESL. English is my First Language. I suppose it's not actually an acronym...


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
17-10-2016 20:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, no, not English as a Second Language, that would be ESL.

Regrettably, ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) are used interchangeably.

jwoodward48 wrote: English is my First Language. I suppose it's not actually an acronym...

When English is your first language, you should always spell out your initialisms the first time you use them in a post, letter, presentation, report, etc...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2016 22:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I thought it was a common abbreviation, but meh.

You wouldn't spell out NASA, though, would you? I suppose there's a bit of skill in telling which acronyms need to be described.
18-10-2016 01:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: You wouldn't spell out NASA, though, would you? I suppose there's a bit of skill in telling which acronyms need to be described.

Yes, I should have included that caveat. One does not generally have to spell out initialisms if there is an existing requirement for all participants to know those initialisms, e.g. no one spells out DoD in a military briefing.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
Denying the Deniers4431-08-2017 17:13
So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?1018-07-2017 05:28
In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?513-03-2017 04:59
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact