Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flat Earthers and other regressions

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Chaka-Z0 View Post
    "A" claims CC can't be pinned on us
    "B" gives substantial proof and pins it on us
    "A": see it can't be pinned on us because of absofukentely no reason

    Where's the line for p90's desk? Oh I see GF's dead body, I must be close.
    It is the responsibility of the person or entity trying to pin something on someone to prove it. Thus far, they have not been able to. And I mean "prove it", not just some theory. And no, you can't redefine words such as "theory" to your liking.

    Prove the claim, or take a flying leap.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
      Prove the claim, or take a flying leap.
      The claim has been proved. Xaeden just summarized it for you which you deny on *shiznit* basis.

      How about you go for a leap?
      Spoiler:
      I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
        It is the responsibility of the person or entity trying to pin something on someone to prove it. Thus far, they have not been able to. And I mean "prove it", not just some theory. And no, you can't redefine words such as "theory" to your liking.

        Prove the claim, or take a flying leap.
        They have done. There is a direct correlation between the rise of CO2 emissions and the increase in world wide temperature. Just because you don’t understand how science works. We aren’t redefining What words mean, you and your ilk are by arguing semantics and ignoring scientific methodology.
        Please do me a huge favour and help me be with the love of my life.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Chaka-Z0 View Post
          "A" claims CC can't be pinned on us
          "B" gives substantial proof and pins it on us
          "A": see it can't be pinned on us because of absofukentely no reason

          Where's the line for p90's desk? Oh I see GF's dead body, I must be close.
          That is what the tacos want you to believe. GF was murdered for daring to call out the hypocrisy and ignorance. They have eyes everywhere and attack anyone who uses facts and logic. I was only spared because im insane
          Originally posted by aretood2
          Jelgate is right

          Comment


            #65
            The Sacrifice was made, and the Mad Prophet speaks. So it shall be.
            "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

            Comment


              #66
              Thanks Gatefan and P-90.

              Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
              It is the responsibility of the person or entity trying to pin something on someone to prove it. Thus far, they have not been able to. And I mean "prove it", not just some theory. And no, you can't redefine words such as "theory" to your liking.

              Prove the claim, or take a flying leap.
              I quoted for you two reliable sources that define a scientific theory as I described. The Oxford English Dictionary, in particular, is the gold standard of dictionaries. It is the most trusted source among for academics who need to write papers, reporters working on articles, or any other kind of serious professional who needs to define or trace the history of words.

              If you like, though, I can provide you with similar quotes from other dictionaries and other reliable sources that say the same thing. Can you offer any source that defines a "scientific theory" in the way that you describe?

              As you correctly note, it is the responsibility of the person making a claim to prove it. I have claimed that "theory," in a scientific context means one thing and then I offered you sources to back up my claim. You have claimed that it means something else and have both ignored my sources and refused to provide any of your own.

              Originally posted by mad_gater View Post
              You'll get no argument from me that we could be better stewards of our environment. Although an argument could be made that changes to the climate are far more likely from Plinian and ultra-Plinian volcanic eruptions (such as the kind produced by Mt. Tambora which resulted in the "Year without a Summer" in the early 1800's) than from mankind's industrial output.
              When I wrote "There have been some periods of rapid climate change in one direction or another during human history, but they are attributable to specific causes," volcanoes were one of the causes that I had in mind, but I'm unclear as to what it has to with the current conversation. It is true that volcanic eruptions commonly have an impact Earth's climate, but they're not responsible for the warming that we're currently experiencing.

              Comment


                #67
                You are not thinking like Annoyed. Anything not supporting his point of view is liberal propaganda. Furthermore, academia is forced brainwashing by the left
                Originally posted by aretood2
                Jelgate is right

                Comment


                  #68
                  Naturally, but who's definitions are we re-defining then?

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Xaeden View Post
                    I quoted for you two reliable sources that define a scientific theory as I described. The Oxford English Dictionary, in particular, is the gold standard of dictionaries. It is the most trusted source among for academics who need to write papers, reporters working on articles, or any other kind of serious professional who needs to define or trace the history of words.

                    If you like, though, I can provide you with similar quotes from other dictionaries and other reliable sources that say the same thing. Can you offer any source that defines a "scientific theory" in the way that you describe?

                    As you correctly note, it is the responsibility of the person making a claim to prove it. I have claimed that "theory," in a scientific context means one thing and then I offered you sources to back up my claim. You have claimed that it means something else and have both ignored my sources and refused to provide any of your own.



                    When I wrote "There have been some periods of rapid climate change in one direction or another during human history, but they are attributable to specific causes," volcanoes were one of the causes that I had in mind, but I'm unclear as to what it has to with the current conversation. It is true that volcanic eruptions commonly have an impact Earth's climate, but they're not responsible for the warming that we're currently experiencing.
                    But it's still not proof.
                    Semantics aside, can you prove that whatever change might be happening today is the result of mankinds's activity, rather than another in a series of warming/cooling periods that have gone on since before mankind existed?

                    Even under your own definition of "theory" it is still just a theory; the most current thinking we have on the topic. But that ain't proof.

                    If you want to dismantle our economy, as with any other accusation, you need to have proof.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by jelgate View Post
                      You are not thinking like Annoyed. Anything not supporting his point of view is liberal propaganda. Furthermore, academia is forced brainwashing by the left
                      Silly jelgate. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
                      "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                        But it's still not proof.
                        Semantics aside, can you prove that whatever change might be happening today is the result of mankinds's activity, rather than another in a series of warming/cooling periods that have gone on since before mankind existed?

                        Even under your own definition of "theory" it is still just a theory; the most current thinking we have on the topic. But that ain't proof.

                        If you want to dismantle our economy, as with any other accusation, you need to have proof.
                        Looks like its hypocrisy bacon time again
                        Originally posted by aretood2
                        Jelgate is right

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by jelgate View Post
                          Looks like its hypocrisy bacon time again
                          No bacon for you until you provide PROOF. No sentient Tacos, either.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            If Annoyed were a Cop you could find a murderer with the knife in his hand, bloodied, standing over the dead body, fingerprints on the handle and he'd still let the guy go.

                            Ok... Let's go ahead and just hypothetically suggest for a moment that 99% of the World's scientists are wrong / liars who are getting paid off (By who exactly as an aside?). That doesn't change what is happening still. The world's getting hotter. The ice caps are melting. Extreme weather is getting more common. One way or another the world cannot go on like it isn't happening. These are all FACTS. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. FACT. CO2 is toxic to most animal life. FACT. Water levels are rising. FACT. Hell, fossil fuels are a finite resource. FACT.

                            One way or another, the economy cannot remain based in the manner in which it is at the moment. Regardless of any of this we still require renewable energy sources, more fuel efficient vehicles which ideally do not run off of fossil energy and a generally more sustainable way of living. And either way we need to do it soon.
                            Please do me a huge favour and help me be with the love of my life.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              *hands out bacon*

                              I walked it off.
                              sigpic
                              ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                              A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                              The truth isn't the truth

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by P-90_177 View Post
                                If Annoyed were a Cop you could find a murderer with the knife in his hand, bloodied, standing over the dead body, fingerprints on the handle and he'd still let the guy go.

                                Ok... Let's go ahead and just hypothetically suggest for a moment that 99% of the World's scientists are wrong / liars who are getting paid off (By who exactly as an aside?). That doesn't change what is happening still. The world's getting hotter. The ice caps are melting. Extreme weather is getting more common. One way or another the world cannot go on like it isn't happening. These are all FACTS. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. FACT. CO2 is toxic to most animal life. FACT. Water levels are rising. FACT. Hell, fossil fuels are a finite resource. FACT.

                                One way or another, the economy cannot remain based in the manner in which it is at the moment. Regardless of any of this we still require renewable energy sources, more fuel efficient vehicles which ideally do not run off of fossil energy and a generally more sustainable way of living. And either way we need to do it soon.
                                But the one guy at the IPCC in 2011 spoke of political corruption. That makes it a shame. I suspect the sentient tacos. Some get the guacamole
                                Originally posted by aretood2
                                Jelgate is right

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X