- Jul 4, 2020
- 3,815
- 2,459
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Well alright but just so you know nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will not go off topic on your post. I will just say i believe the creation described in the Bible.
Well alright but just so you know nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat.
Actually, Biblical cosmology is of a flat earth with an overhead sky dome.
I see Israel is under water. Interesting.
The reality is that the scientific evidence and research has suggested the total opposite. But most people don't know that, because they've swallowed all the alarmist propaganda without ever thinking about it, or questioning anything they're told.Well for one thing, warmer oceans means more powerful hurricanes, and more of them.
All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Keep in mind when I'm asking this question that I have special needs so please don't leave a whole bunch of complicated responses,.. but I know a little bit of what it is already but can somebody please explain it in Layman's terms? Also in your opinion is it really going to happen?
The company that owns that site, whose director is a school teacher who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, has a reputation as promoting conspiracies and pseudoscience (including anti-vax propaganda).If you are genuinely interested in what is really going on with climate, I suggest that you start reading some alternative sources, starting with this article.
Is that like when the church used to cry heresy as a way to discredit?The company that owns that site, whose director is a school teacher who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, has a reputation as promoting conspiracies and pseudoscience (including anti-vax propaganda).
Just sayin'.
Probably not. I was just curious about a recommended source and checked into its background - what I posted is what I discovered.Is that like when the church used to cry heresy as a way to discredit?
No; that among fact-checking sites, reputable science organisations, and science forumites, it had a poor reputation, to put it mildly.That the company promotes itself as conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists? Nice to see an open attitude on their part.
Firstly, your response is a logical fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. This type of fallacious argument can be summarised as 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.'The company that owns that site, whose director is a school teacher who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, has a reputation as promoting conspiracies and pseudoscience (including anti-vax propaganda).
Just sayin'.
Nope, I was simply reporting what the sources I mentioned were saying. Perhaps you should read the post again.Firstly, your response is a logical fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. This type of fallacious argument can be summarised as 'You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.'
I didn't address that because it's pointless and irrelevant. A legal spat between two individuals that was dismissed on technical grounds.Secondly, your response totally failed to address the content of the URL I posted. Bearing in mind that the URL consists of a report on court proceedings, I predict that you will struggle to make a good counter argument. Although you are of course very welcome to try, and I very much encourage you to do so. Here it is again for you.
Why quote and respond to my post in the first instance, if you didn't intend to respond to the article I linked to? Your initial response doesn't appear to have any purpose whatsoever, apart from demonstrating that your only counter argument resembles a Genetic Logical Fallacy.Nope, I was simply reporting what the sources I mentioned were saying. Perhaps you should read the post again.
If your assessment of that article is that it was nothing more than a legal spat, then I'll not bother wasting any more time, because it's clear that you are unable to understand why refusal to release data and methods undermines the scientific process.I didn't address that because it's pointless and irrelevant. A legal spat between two individuals that was dismissed on technical grounds.
If your assessment of that article is that it was nothing more than a legal spat, then I'll not bother wasting any more time, because it's clear that you are unable to understand why refusal to release data and methods undermines the scientific process.
As I understand the situation, the plaintiff had over 8 years to produce their data and methods. I think people are right to be sceptical when the plaintiff did not do so, particularly as the so-called hockey stick chart was the poster child for climate alarmism for a good number of years.Mann's lawsuit was dismissed because of delays on the side of the plaintiff. There was no judgement on whether the statements were actually defamatory or not.
I have worked in academia, I have published in the peer reviewed literature many times, and I have acted as a reviewer. And that is probably a lot more than most on here can claim. From that you can deduce that I know quite a lot about the way experiments are performed, written up, assessed for scientific robustness, and finally published in scientific literature.If you think that the PSI article about the judgement dismissing the Mann V Ball lawsuit is for people who are "genuinely interested in what is really going on with climate", I suggest you need a several things:
An education on what is, and isn't, scientific literature
Science is not done by consensus. It never has been. It never will be. Lack of consensus and opposing viewpoints is how progress is made. Good scientists are sceptical by nature. Good scientists don't look the other way when another scientist refuses to release their data and methods. Do you understand that? I have to ask, because your responses suggest that you do not.An understanding of how consensus scientific understandings are arrived at
What, if anything, do you think was inaccurate in the article I linked to? Or are you just another one looking to employ the Genetic Logical Fallacy?An understanding of source bias
Until quite recently I used to have a lot of interest in climate science. Not any more. I've seen enough malpractice to last me for now.A familiarity with the current state of global warming and climate assessments
I think that information is better interpreted when given a relevant context. I can understand that you might be uncomfortable with that.Why quote and respond to my post in the first instance, if you didn't intend to respond to the article I linked to? Your initial response doesn't appear to have any purpose whatsoever, apart from demonstrating that your only counter argument resembles a Genetic Logical Fallacy.
My view was based on the judgement, which said nothing about the substance of the case; i.e. no judgement was made on the allegations.If your assessment of that article is that it was nothing more than a legal spat, then I'll not bother wasting any more time, because it's clear that you are unable to understand why refusal to release data and methods undermines the scientific process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?