The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:20 pm

mistermack wrote:Like I said in my first post, potholer is a cunt. And so is Crowder, from what I've seen. Can't watch either of them.
The first bit of clear absolute bullshit and I click off.

Patrick Moore? He doesn't bullshit, and I can listen to him.
Won't listen more like.

Patrick Moore doesn't bullshit?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/gree ... on-patric/

https://skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html

:hilarious:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by mistermack » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:41 pm

Greenpeace and Skeptical Science?

You really do have a taste for shite don't you? You really love your blogs. :ab:
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:41 pm

Jesus! :shock: No wonder MM think potholer is a cunt. He keeps exposing the massive lies of liars for the fossil industry,



What a cunt!
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:42 pm

mistermack wrote:Greenpeace and Skeptical Science?

You really do have a taste for shite don't you? You really love your blogs. :ab:
Yes. You've already established that you can't (won't) listen to people who disagree with you and only listen to those who confirm your biases. The hilarious part is you think this shows you in a good light.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by mistermack » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:45 pm

Animavore wrote:
mistermack wrote:Greenpeace and Skeptical Science?

You really do have a taste for shite don't you? You really love your blogs. :ab:
Yes. You've already established that you can't (won't) listen to people who disagree with you and only listen to those who confirm your biases. The hilarious part is you think this shows you in a good light.
Not at all.
I switch off people who bullshit. It's not the same thing.
To you it is, because you gobble up bullshit. You have no filter at all.

That's because you haven't got a fucking clue about science yourself.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:53 pm

mistermack wrote:
Animavore wrote:
mistermack wrote:Greenpeace and Skeptical Science?

You really do have a taste for shite don't you? You really love your blogs. :ab:
Yes. You've already established that you can't (won't) listen to people who disagree with you and only listen to those who confirm your biases. The hilarious part is you think this shows you in a good light.
Not at all.
I switch off people who bullshit. It's not the same thing.
To you it is, because you gobble up bullshit. You have no filter at all.

That's because you haven't got a fucking clue about science yourself.
No. You switch off because you're scared of your precious and fragile worldview being destroyed.

I have no fear of reading the other side. And I have. And they constantly contradict themselves. Climate change isn't happening. Climate change is happening but CO2 is good. Climate change isn't happening but we're going to promote geoengineering to fix a problem we don't believe exists. Climate change is happening but it won't be as much as scientists say because of ill defined limitations. It's the Sun. It's volcanoes. And so on. Mutually exclusive "theories" being paraded about by the denial crowd which can't all be true.

You think you know about science, but you don't seem to have heard of concordance of evidence which is pretty much one of its main pillars.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by mistermack » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:26 pm

You're having a larf.

Concordance of evidence is the easiest thing to arrange. It's called cherry picking.

Science is a very mushy concept. Mathematics is a very precise part of science. Physics is a very precise science generally, but does involve uncertainty.
Weather science is very imprecise, but can make reasonably accurate predictions, which become far less accurate, with each day into the future that you try to predict. But it does have some history, of predictions coming true, and improving with time.

Climate science is brand new, in comparison to all of these, and makes no predictions that everyone agrees on.
Every Tom Dick and Harry makes his own predictions and twiddles his own models.
And the early models have all been proved disastrously wrong.

In short, it really doesn't qualify as a science yet. It's a field of study. But makes no useful verifiable predictions.
Give it time, and it might eventually get somewhere useful. If it ever allows scepticism back in. Like proper science does.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:33 pm

mistermack wrote:You say that Al Gore being a lying shit should be inconsequential to me.
But you started a thread and keep posting about Steve Crowder.

There ! I've explained hypocrisy for you. Hope you get it now.
So are you saying that Crowder hasn't misrepresented science or out-and-out lied about what climate scientists are saying and/or have said, such that calling Crowder out on this is hypocritical?

I really hope you can clear this one up for me. :tea:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:37 pm

mistermack wrote:You're having a larf.

Concordance of evidence is the easiest thing to arrange. It's called cherry picking.
Yes, scientists cherry pick. They cherry pick the hypotheses which best accounts for the observable evidence. I'm sure you don't have any problem with scientists cherry picking in this manner when it comes to material science, or geology, or particle physics, do you?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:44 pm

mistermack wrote:Concordance of evidence is the easiest thing to arrange. It's called cherry picking.
You can't get a concordance of evidence by cherry picking. You get it by gathering all of the data and matching it for the most likely solution. Cherry picking directly contradicts the idea of concordance because you would be leaving out some or other evidence.

Image
mistermack wrote:Science is a very mushy concept. Mathematics is a very precise part of science. Physics is a very precise science generally, but does involve uncertainty. Weather science is very imprecise, but can make reasonably accurate predictions, which become far less accurate, with each day into the future that you try to predict. But it does have some history, of predictions coming true, and improving with time.
Climate is more predictable than weather. Will the climate be warmer or colder in the Summer in the Northern hemisphere when the Earth is tilted toward the Sun? Yes. It will. What will the weather be next year on June 21st in Cork, Ireland? Who knows?
mistermack wrote:Climate science is brand new, in comparison to all of these, and makes no predictions that everyone agrees on.
Climate science is not brand new, it was discovered CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the 1820s by Fourier, and it was first suggested an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could cause a rise in global temperature by Arrhenius in 1896. Both of these guys were physicists. Not that the newness of a science says anything about its veracity. I mean really. WTF?

It makes predictions that the World will get warmer (it is and has been since the 50s when scientists really started talking about it). It made predictions that ice sheets would melt (they are, to the tune of over 160 million cubic feet per year). That there would be more droughts (true). And more frequent and extreme weather (also true). These are the predictions that are generally agreed upon.
mistermack wrote:Every Tom Dick and Harry makes his own predictions and twiddles his own models.
Go on then. make one.
mistermack wrote:And the early models have all been proved disastrously wrong.
Nope.

https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-198 ... vanced.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming
mistermack wrote:In short, it really doesn't qualify as a science yet. It's a field of study. But makes no useful verifiable predictions.Give it time, and it might eventually get somewhere useful. If it ever allows scepticism back in. Like proper science does.
Bullshit. It is as science as any other and it is sceptical by nature. You're not a sceptic. You're a denier with your fingers in your ear as your dismissive attitude towards people and blogs that don't toe your bias proves. You haven't even countered a single thing posted. Just rejection. And yes. I fully predict that you will reject the articles I posted without any real rebuttal. You're just as predictable as climate.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by mistermack » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:49 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
mistermack wrote:You say that Al Gore being a lying shit should be inconsequential to me.
But you started a thread and keep posting about Steve Crowder.

There ! I've explained hypocrisy for you. Hope you get it now.
So are you saying that Crowder hasn't misrepresented science or out-and-out lied about what climate scientists are saying and/or have said, such that calling Crowder out on this is hypocritical?

I really hope you can clear this one up for me. :tea:
It's hypocritical for ani to say " Also, you don't believe in climate change, so Al Gore being a lying shit should be inconsequential to you." when he doesn't apply the same rule to to himself re. Steve Crowder .

I don't see what needs clearing up in that.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:54 pm

mistermack wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
mistermack wrote:You say that Al Gore being a lying shit should be inconsequential to me.
But you started a thread and keep posting about Steve Crowder.

There ! I've explained hypocrisy for you. Hope you get it now.
So are you saying that Crowder hasn't misrepresented science or out-and-out lied about what climate scientists are saying and/or have said, such that calling Crowder out on this is hypocritical?

I really hope you can clear this one up for me. :tea:
It's hypocritical for ani to say " Also, you don't believe in climate change, so Al Gore being a lying shit should be inconsequential to you." when he doesn't apply the same rule to to himself re. Steve Crowder .

I don't see what needs clearing up in that.
Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. I'll put hypocrisy into the list of things you don't understand.

Crowder and other lying, denialist arseholes, like the whole Republican party, who promote inaction just to squeeze out a few more petrol dollars are of consequence to me if climate change isn't a myth.

It's pretty fucking simple.

Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by mistermack » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:57 pm

Arranging a presentation of evidence to support your starting out position is what I call cherry picking.
In other words, you can't take a "concordance of evidence" at face value, in today's climate science world.
Because they are all activists. Not unbiased scientists. So they will cherry pick, and have indeed been caught out doing just that.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:05 pm

mistermack wrote:Arranging a presentation of evidence to support your starting out position is what I call cherry picking.

I know what cherry picking is. It's what deniers do.

Image

It's what Crowder did when he only showed the Antarctic to derive the conclusion the ice sheets were increasing. Which you'd know if you weren't to afraid to watch it.
mistermack wrote:In other words, you can't take a "concordance of evidence" at face value, in today's climate science world.
Why the scare quotes? I've explained that you can't have a concordance when you cherry pick so this sentence is wibble.
mistermack wrote:Because they are all activists. Not unbiased scientists.
What? All of the people represented by all these institutes aren't scientists?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016

Are you quite mad? That's some conspiracy.
mistermack wrote:So they will cherry pick, and have indeed been caught out doing just that.
Nope. You guys do that. Refer to graph above.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Post by mistermack » Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:09 pm

That video is aimed at morons. Full of false choices.
I told you you have no filter.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests