Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4

The first of four parts where Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examni...

Comment by Davis Goodman on May 10, 2014 at 9:20am

You've utterly ignored almost every critical reply to your posts about climate disaster. You really should play by the rules of decent discussion. Answer peoples challenges. Don't ignore them. Don't state random ideas with shoddy evidence, discard what people have to say and the go ahead and post yet another link or video. This breaks the most important rules of rational free thinking discourse.

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on May 10, 2014 at 10:24am

You've utterly ignored almost every critical reply to your posts about climate disaster. You really should play by the rules of decent discussion. Answer peoples challenges. Don't ignore them.

For any readers who missed our original discussion, read through Andy's thread "Is belief in global warming much different than religion? to see just how much information Andy is willfully ignoring.

For instance...

Andy is ignoring that Dr. Carter's dismissal of burning fossil fuels is changing the climate is at odds with 97% of peer-reviewed climate change research and every major science academy in the world.

Andy is ignoring the research on climate change, including specific sources from NASA, NCDC, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Andy is ignoring that climate change denialism is a multi-million dollar disinformation campaign that is funded by the fossil fuels lobby. And that brings us to Dr. Bob Carter.

Predictably, Bob Carter holds no academic post, is not qualified in climate science, but is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which is funded by Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations. He's a shill for the petroleum industry.

Andy's post is a form of agnotology: culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. That is, ignore reason, evidence and science, and keep preaching the gospel of denialism: I see nothing.

Comment by Andy Hoke on May 11, 2014 at 1:25am

Davis, I'll respond to you because you aren't hiding behind a pseudonym. Let's talk, let's communicate. We have a lot in common. Are you or are you not willing to discuss this?

I have questions about why you believe what you do. I do not understand. I am seeking information about your position because it confuses me. The metaphoric ball is in your metaphoric court.

I grow weary of the ad hominems. I tire of the laziness of consensus acceptance versus science discussions. That ratio is completely upside down for me. This group doesn't really like to be questioned about this belief. I get that. This is our common ground, that because I don't think the same as you, I am to be the subject of ridicule. For the record, I don't think I'm the one who looks silly.

If ThinkAtheist is not hospitable for questions regarding beliefs, feelings and impressions about science, than perhaps we can all agree that this site is no longer this site for me.

Comment by Davis Goodman on May 11, 2014 at 1:42am

Why don't you start by going back to all of those replies on your original post that you've ignored and start answering them?

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on May 11, 2014 at 3:23am

Davis, I'll respond to you because you aren't hiding behind a pseudonym. Let's talk, let's communicate. We have a lot in common. Are you or are you not willing to discuss this?

You're in a public discussion forum. You're responding to everyone who reads this thread.

I have questions about why you believe what you do. I do not understand. I am seeking information about your position because it confuses me. The metaphoric ball is in your metaphoric court.

Davis was the first to respond to your original thread about climate change. He invited you to ask questions. ("Why don't you give us a list of the data and sources that you have looked at and then we can point you in the right direction.")

That was ten days ago. You ignored his offer and made your claim: human-caused global-warming is without substantiation (which means 'without supporting evidence).

We've provided the supporting evidence many times over. You are simply ignoring it. The ball is in your court.

I grow weary of the ad hominems.

Ad Hominem means rejecting a claim or argument on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument. (Example: Andy uses a stoopid bunny for an avatar, so there's no way his cookies taste as good as he says.)

You're ignoring (1) thousands of pages of sourced scientific research that supports human-caused global warming, (2) proof of a 97% consensus in the scientific community, (3) the endorsement of every major scientific society in the world, and (4) that the climate change misinformation industry is funded by the powerful fossil fuel lobby.

That's not ad hominem. It's all relevant to the point. That's what climate change denial is.

I tire of the laziness...

Remember folks, this assessment of intellectual laziness is coming from a man who refuses to do any more research, and is directed those who actually do research for Andy's discussions.

...of consensus acceptance...

It's "laziness" to accept a 97% scientific consensus? Is accepting a scientific consensus also stinky and smelly and icky?

Then again, I suppose denying a 97% scientific consensus (over and over and over again) is a lot of exhausting work.

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on May 11, 2014 at 3:24am

...versus science discussions.

The science on global climate change has been posted in your original thread for ten days. You haven't attempted any "discussion" of it. You've denied or dismissed all of it.

You claim it's not "good information", "not valid", "not strong enough", "absent", "no good", and so on. When asked to explain how and why the science is 'no good' you refuse any discussion of  it at all.

That ratio is completely upside down for me.

Yes, Andy. You're on the wrong side of that ratio for sure.

This group doesn't really like to be questioned about this belief. I get that.

Science is not a belief system. You're not questioning anything. You're denying everything.

This is our common ground, that because I don't think the same as you, I am to be the subject of ridicule.

Show me where you've done any thinking at all. Share this thought process with me. Walk me through your reasoned arguments and rebuttals. Let's see them.

You cannot do it. Your posts here on climate change are virtually content-free.

That's because your denial of the science of climate change is not a result of thinking, it's a result of refusing to think. Willful ignorance is blindness to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.

That's all you're doing.

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on May 11, 2014 at 3:24am

For the record, I don't think I'm the one who looks silly.

I'm sure you don't.

If ThinkAtheist is not hospitable for questions regarding beliefs, feelings and impressions about science, than perhaps we can all agree that this site is no longer this site for me.

You didn't ask any scientific questions. You made claims about science. You claim that global warming is unsubstantiated. You claim there is no scientific consensus. You claim there is no "good" information available. You made many more scientific claims, mostly that the science for human-caused climate change is faulty.

If you make claims about science and refuse to explain, or rely on nothing but "beliefs, feelings and impressions" for support, you haven't supported anything at all.

Keep telling me I have a belief system after I assure you that I do not. Keep telling people who disdain religion that the science is a religion. Keep ignoring or denying the science and the evidence while you groundlessly attack it.

I'm going to respond to that and not with soft gloves.

Comment by Andy Hoke on May 12, 2014 at 7:50am

Why don't you start by going back to all of those replies on your original post that you've ignored and start answering them?

Time.

Comment by Andy Hoke on May 12, 2014 at 11:36pm

@ Gallup's Mirror

Look, I'm sure you're cool as hell. I feel like we both understand that religion causes suffering, and public discourse via the Internet is an amazing force. This is the information age. I read a good book years ago which pointed out a greater level of accountability due to the availability of more information.

No disrespect intended, but I doubt reading everything you wrote. The circumstances seem perfectly predictable to me. Here may be where we part ways.

I hate to have to take someone else's words out of my mouth, but when my point of view is falsely characterized/ attirubuted/ lied about, yeah, I take exception (and so should everybody).

"You didn't ask any scientific questions."

You begin with nonsense. I introduced science which questions the need for alarm. This cool, new geocentric fanaticism and closed mindedness does not do it for me.

So called atheists have substituted carbon for sin and Al Gore for Jesus Christ! Our essential biology depends on our continued ability to produce carbon dioxide. We are carbon based life forms.

While I am aware that what I say bothers people, I feel like I've earned a jihad. If people can't handle certain questions, fine. This dialog advances elsewhere.   

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on May 13, 2014 at 4:14am

Davis: Why don't you start by going back to all of those replies on your original post that you've ignored and start answering them?

Andy: Time.

No time to reply to everything you've ignored...

@ Gallup's Mirror Look, I'm sure you're cool as hell. I feel like we both understand that religion causes suffering, and public discourse via the Internet is an amazing force. This is the information age. I read a good book years ago which pointed out a greater level of accountability due to the availability of more information.

...but time to write this.

No disrespect intended,

Claims and arguments are not owed respect, Andy. Respect must be earned using reason and evidence.

but I doubt reading everything you wrote.

Yes, I've felt confident all along that you disregarded or read little of what I wrote.

The circumstances seem perfectly predictable to me. Here may be where we part ways.

That's your call, Andy.

I hate to have to take someone else's words out of my mouth, but when my point of view is falsely characterized/ attirubuted/ lied about, yeah, I take exception (and so should everybody).

Calling another user a liar is a personal attack, Andy, unless you can demonstrate that it's true.

Please do so. How have I lied about your views? Demonstrate my lies. Provide the necessary quotes and links. Be specific.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Davis Goodman 1 hour ago. 110 Replies

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 2 hours ago. 5 Replies

Great retorts

Started by Unseen in Quotes. Last reply by Wesley 3 hours ago. 13 Replies

Is There Any Ex-Mennonites or Ex-Amish On This Site?

Started by Jessica Miller in Advice. Last reply by Physeter 8 hours ago. 25 Replies

Blog Posts

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Finally, a cool billboard in Arkansas!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 8:21am 2 Comments

Atheist Sites

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service