|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 19:18:23 GMT
I know. I do show my work in exquisite detail. I know you can't remember anything longer than three minutes so here is a reminder. Showing my work. Just yet another non-sequitur then as there is nothing there offering any independent scientific substantiation for your climate change denial which is, still, what is asked for. Evasion still noted. I didn't say there was no climate change. I said your sources did not show evidence for their claims. There is a difference. I suppose there might be other sources somewhere that show data connected to their conclusions. I just have not been shown those, by you or anyone else. If you repeat bad science that you incorrectly believe supports climate change, what is the result? The result is that you erode belief in science among otherwise intelligent people. Is that what you want to do? Suppose instead you really would rather bolster support for science. How do you do that? You keep your stupid mouth shut. That's how. Else wait till you can make a case using data that leads to your findings. Now do you understand why it doesn't matter whether idiots such as yourself "believe" in science? It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can show.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 26, 2020 19:31:02 GMT
Wait are you unironically arguing I have to actually do scientific studies myself for them to be valid? Holy shit are you really this stupid? So if someone argues with you about how brain surgery works and shows you medical studies, and your response is "Well you didn't actually do the brain surgery yourself, you didn't show your own work!" you think that's a perfectly valid response? OK, you're trolling, no one is seriously this stupid. You got me. Let's say just for the purposes of discussion that the site you linked is a fraud. How would you know? Another thing, suppose the site you linked is a deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet. How would you know? How would you avoid being caught in the trap? "Let's say just for the purposes of discussion that the site you linked is a fraud. How would you know?" So do you think NASA is lying? Is that really the angle you're going with, Alex Jones? Do you also think the moon landing was faked? If you're gonna use that argument, I could just as easily throw that at any study you give me (including your own). You do realize to do the same studies as climate scientists would require expensive equipment and travelling all over the world, something that I don't have the time or money for? Are you really this absurd? Do you see why this a dumb argument? "Another thing, suppose the site you linked is a deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet. How would you know? How would you avoid being caught in the trap?" Are you really gonna try and argue NASA is a "deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet"? I'm gonna ask you again (and actually answer this time), if two people are arguing about brain surgery is it perfectly to dismiss whatever data is thrown at you simply because the person doesn't actually do brain surgery themselves?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 20:46:01 GMT
Just yet another non-sequitur then as there is nothing there offering any independent scientific substantiation for your climate change denial which is, still, what is asked for. Evasion still noted. I didn't say there was no climate change. I said your sources did not show evidence for their claims. There is a difference. I suppose there might be other sources somewhere that show data connected to their conclusions. I just have not been shown those, by you or anyone else. If you repeat bad science that you incorrectly believe supports climate change , what is the result? The result is that you erode belief in science among otherwise intelligent people. Is that what you want to do? Suppose instead you really would rather bolster support for science. How do you do that? You keep your stupid mouth shut. That's how. Else wait till you can make a case using data that leads to your findings. Now do you understand why it doesn't matter whether idiots such as yourself "believe" in science? It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can show. Science is not a democracy and still no one made you an expert. Evasion and irony noted yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 21:37:55 GMT
Let's say just for the purposes of discussion that the site you linked is a fraud. How would you know? Another thing, suppose the site you linked is a deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet. How would you know? How would you avoid being caught in the trap? "Let's say just for the purposes of discussion that the site you linked is a fraud. How would you know?" So do you think NASA is lying? Is that really the angle you're going with, Alex Jones? Do you also think the moon landing was faked? If you're gonna use that argument, I could just as easily throw that at any study you give me (including your own). You do realize to do the same studies as climate scientists would require expensive equipment and travelling all over the world, something that I don't have the time or money for? Are you really this absurd? Do you see why this a dumb argument? "Another thing, suppose the site you linked is a deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet. How would you know? How would you avoid being caught in the trap?" Are you really gonna try and argue NASA is a "deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet"? I'm gonna ask you again (and actually answer this time), if two people are arguing about brain surgery is it perfectly to dismiss whatever data is thrown at you simply because the person doesn't actually do brain surgery themselves? Pluto is round.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 21:39:15 GMT
I didn't say there was no climate change. I said your sources did not show evidence for their claims. There is a difference. I suppose there might be other sources somewhere that show data connected to their conclusions. I just have not been shown those, by you or anyone else. If you repeat bad science that you incorrectly believe supports climate change , what is the result? The result is that you erode belief in science among otherwise intelligent people. Is that what you want to do? Suppose instead you really would rather bolster support for science. How do you do that? You keep your stupid mouth shut. That's how. Else wait till you can make a case using data that leads to your findings. Now do you understand why it doesn't matter whether idiots such as yourself "believe" in science? It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can show. Science is not a democracy and still no one made you an expert. Evasion and irony noted yet again. How would you know?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 21:41:40 GMT
Science is not a democracy and still no one made you an expert. Evasion and irony noted yet again. How would you know? Distraction and so evasion still noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 22:00:36 GMT
Distraction and so evasion still noted. Because I get bored with the repetition.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 22:03:26 GMT
Distraction and so evasion still noted. Because I get bored with the repetition. OK then, since you hate the repetition, here's a new question for you. You say that you have 'not been shown evidence connected to data by .. anyone' which shows climate change. Which relevant scientific and authoritative organisation would you accept as an authority on this subject? Or do you know better than all of them? Evasion in regards to this will also be noted. As will be my suspicion that you are just trolling.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 26, 2020 23:03:52 GMT
"Let's say just for the purposes of discussion that the site you linked is a fraud. How would you know?" So do you think NASA is lying? Is that really the angle you're going with, Alex Jones? Do you also think the moon landing was faked? If you're gonna use that argument, I could just as easily throw that at any study you give me (including your own). You do realize to do the same studies as climate scientists would require expensive equipment and travelling all over the world, something that I don't have the time or money for? Are you really this absurd? Do you see why this a dumb argument? "Another thing, suppose the site you linked is a deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet. How would you know? How would you avoid being caught in the trap?" Are you really gonna try and argue NASA is a "deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet"? I'm gonna ask you again (and actually answer this time), if two people are arguing about brain surgery is it perfectly to dismiss whatever data is thrown at you simply because the person doesn't actually do brain surgery themselves? Pluto is round. So your not gonna actually respond to anything I've said. Predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 27, 2020 12:35:36 GMT
Because I get bored with the repetition. OK then, since you hate the repetition, here's a new question for you. You say that you have 'not been shown evidence connected to data by .. anyone' which shows climate change. Which relevant scientific and authoritative organisation would you accept as an authority on this subject? Or do you know better than all of them? Evasion in regards to this will also be noted. As will be my suspicion that you are just trolling. You don't understand how science works. I am not an elementary school child (or like one or like you) who needs to pick some "authority" to follow. Except where government has managed to pass some strange law I am the authority for all the decisions I make and all the money I spend. (The buck stops here, not on the president's desk.) The pandemic is an entirely different emergency situation for which no one (afaik) was prepared. I recognize it as such and am very cautious (more so than you) as this thread points out. Even basic science is so far over your head you never learned to take any personal responsibility. Many people would rather not have any personal responsibility. Some people actually liked being slaves because they could just follow simple instructions and it was the fault of someone else if the house fell down. Especially today many people prefer to imagine there is some "authority" like the government over them that they can blindly follow. Your question that seeing we are not capable of science, which scientific "authority" should we follow has no answer. If you are not capable of science yourself you will be doomed to wrong choice after wrong choice. I however will not because I am capable of science myself. You will not take advice from me, not because of any failing of mine, but because of your own failing. I don't have a lot of advice anyway beyond understanding the importance of minding my own business and how science actually works. Your attitude would be fine and perfectly acceptable politically if you could learn how to properly avoid minding the business of anyone else. If a vaccine is found and if you can get it, you no longer have any excuse to mind the business of anyone else. You can believe in whatever you want, just don't expect any blind allegiance from others. The reason health care costs were and are so very high in the United States is that mentally retarded people entirely dependent on government for their every move still have not realized they are not qualified to manage the health care of other people and intend to write blank checks to the medical field.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 27, 2020 12:51:05 GMT
OK then, since you hate the repetition, here's a new question for you. You say that you have 'not been shown evidence connected to data by .. anyone' which shows climate change. Which relevant scientific and authoritative organisation would you accept as an authority on this subject? Or do you know better than all of them? Evasion in regards to this will also be noted. As will be my suspicion that you are just trolling. You don't understand how science works. I am not an elementary school child (or like one or like you) who needs to pick some "authority" to follow. Except where government has managed to pass some strange law I am the authority for all the decisions I make and all the money I spend. (The buck stops here, not on the president's desk.) The pandemic is an entirely different emergency situation for which no one (afaik) was prepared. I recognize it as such and am very cautious (more so than you) as this thread points out. Even basic science is so far over your head you never learned to take any personal responsibility. Many people would rather not have any personal responsibility. Some people actually liked being slaves because they could just follow simple instructions and it was the fault of someone else if the house fell down. Especially today many people prefer to imagine there is some "authority" like the government over them that they can blindly follow. Your question that seeing we are not capable of science, which scientific "authority" should we follow has no answer. If you are not capable of science yourself you will be doomed to wrong choice after wrong choice. I however will not because I am capable of science myself. You will not take advice from me, not because of any failing of mine, but because of your own failing. I don't have a lot of advice anyway beyond understanding the importance of minding my own business and how science actually works. Your attitude would be fine and perfectly acceptable politically if you could learn how to properly avoid minding the business of anyone else. If a vaccine is found and you if can get it, you no longer have any excuse to mind the business of anyone else. You can believe in whatever you want, just don't expect any blind allegiance from others. The reason health care costs were and are so very high in the United States is that mentally retarded people entirely dependent on government for their every move still have not realized they are not qualified to manage the health care of other people and intend to write blank checks to the medical field. Evasion noted. Arlon has 'no answer' to the the question of which if any scientific authorities that support his position. Instead he just has himself as the authority. That's it from me, see you next time.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 27, 2020 13:00:27 GMT
You don't understand how science works. I am not an elementary school child (or like one or like you) who needs to pick some "authority" to follow. Except where government has managed to pass some strange law I am the authority for all the decisions I make and all the money I spend. (The buck stops here, not on the president's desk.) The pandemic is an entirely different emergency situation for which no one (afaik) was prepared. I recognize it as such and am very cautious (more so than you) as this thread points out. Even basic science is so far over your head you never learned to take any personal responsibility. Many people would rather not have any personal responsibility. Some people actually liked being slaves because they could just follow simple instructions and it was the fault of someone else if the house fell down. Especially today many people prefer to imagine there is some "authority" like the government over them that they can blindly follow. Your question that seeing we are not capable of science, which scientific "authority" should we follow has no answer. If you are not capable of science yourself you will be doomed to wrong choice after wrong choice. I however will not because I am capable of science myself. You will not take advice from me, not because of any failing of mine, but because of your own failing. I don't have a lot of advice anyway beyond understanding the importance of minding my own business and how science actually works. Your attitude would be fine and perfectly acceptable politically if you could learn how to properly avoid minding the business of anyone else. If a vaccine is found and you if can get it, you no longer have any excuse to mind the business of anyone else. You can believe in whatever you want, just don't expect any blind allegiance from others. The reason health care costs were and are so very high in the United States is that mentally retarded people entirely dependent on government for their every move still have not realized they are not qualified to manage the health care of other people and intend to write blank checks to the medical field. Evasion noted. Arlon has 'no answer' to the the question of which if any scientific authorities that support his position. Instead he just has himself as the authority. That's it from me, see you next time. I don't own any land, at least not at the moment. I don't own a gun and probably never will. I don't like them myself. I don't care much who else has one. That's good for you since otherwise I would shoot anybody as stupid as you if you crossed my land.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 28, 2020 9:57:23 GMT
A problem with this poll is that some people think they depend on science when they really do not. They depend on popularized notions of science that have been, and can be, shown to be mistaken. It is a fact that the religious are more cautious (except some "Christians"). It is not an opinion. You are however welcome to whine about it even as the false science is discarded.
|
|