[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2017, 01:12 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 12:53 PM)Walter Wrote:  Quit using your own effing experiences to form the basis of your views! Good God! Don't you know who you are talking to?!

Walter,

Please answer my question.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2017, 01:18 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 12:53 PM)Walter Wrote:  Don't you know who you are talking to?!

[Image: tin13.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
25-05-2017, 01:37 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 08:20 AM)Walter Wrote:  It is fascinating how my skepticism generates so much anguish. In other skeptics...

LOL... you're certainly not too modest to blow your own horn Walter! Over and over and over again it would seem, from this thread alone.

At any rate, as a lifelong skeptic (and atheist) I fail to see how your climate change denialism causes anybody here any "anguish". That's just too funny for words mate.

You seem to be missing the point that the vast majority of skeptics—unlike you—do actually assess both sides of any argument equally, and don't—again like you—follow a rigidly-defined, obsessive, pre-supposed line of thought.

You've also not addressed my earlier question asking you to provide some sort of citations for this claim—and which you've not adequately explained "multiple" times:

Quote:I have explained multiple times the fraud committed by government scientists over the last 60 years.

Over to you matey.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
25-05-2017, 01:51 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 12:53 PM)Walter Wrote:  Good God! Don't you know who you are talking to?!

A lunatic Drinking Beverage

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-05-2017, 03:36 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 12:53 PM)Walter Wrote:  We have some common ground. I was with the National Cancer Institute in the 1970s. You might remember the anecdote, where I was told “We are not going to rock the boat” when I expressed concern about the saccharine study.

If you know the history of the saccharin-cancer link, you'd know that the link that was discovered in the 70s is very real... in rats. It still does cause cancer in rats. However, later study found that the mechanism which caused cancer in the rats did not function in humans the same way, and due to the continued work of cancer researchers, the new data was published and saccharin was de-listed as a human carcinogen.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...fact-sheet

Your "anecdote" is not an example of science (and government policy based on science) gone wrong, but science gone right. Seriously, would you rather the government had heard about the cancer link in lab rats and then failed to warn us that there's a known cancer link from this product? And when it became clear from further research that the link did not apply to us, the government acted to remove that warning from saccharin and to let everyone know it was now considered safe.

So what WAS your objection to the 1970s cancer study, exactly? It was not wrong.

Your implications from this story are not only bunk, they are dishonest.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-05-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 03:36 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Your "anecdote" is not an example of science (and government policy based on science) gone wrong, but science gone right.

Plus Walter's analogy with outdated nutritional research is not the best one to make. A better analogy is to point out that some decades ago cigarette manufacturers paid scientists to deny smoking led to cancer, even after the scientific research was clear. We have fossil fuel industries executing exactly the same ploy today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thoreauvian's post
26-05-2017, 03:56 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Apologies if I've missed some conspiracy tin-foil-hat-wearing garbage....but why is climate change in this section as well as the science bit?

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2017, 04:09 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(26-05-2017 03:56 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  Apologies if I've missed some conspiracy tin-foil-hat-wearing garbage....but why is climate change in this section as well as the science bit?

Mom split off this section to keep the deniers from dominating the original discussion, to keep it about the actual science and possible solutions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2017, 04:12 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2017 04:25 AM by OakTree500.)
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(26-05-2017 04:09 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(26-05-2017 03:56 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  Apologies if I've missed some conspiracy tin-foil-hat-wearing garbage....but why is climate change in this section as well as the science bit?

Mom split off this section to keep the deniers from dominating the original discussion, to keep it about the actual science and possible solutions.

What is there to deny ? Facepalm

Hand on a tic, I'll go through the thread and see what they are saying. Tin foil hat at the ready....

EDIT: I honestly have no words for some of the bullshit I've just read.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OakTree500's post
26-05-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(25-05-2017 03:36 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-05-2017 12:53 PM)Walter Wrote:  We have some common ground. I was with the National Cancer Institute in the 1970s. You might remember the anecdote, where I was told “We are not going to rock the boat” when I expressed concern about the saccharine study.

If you know the history of the saccharin-cancer link, you'd know that the link that was discovered in the 70s is very real... in rats. It still does cause cancer in rats. However, later study found that the mechanism which caused cancer in the rats did not function in humans the same way, and due to the continued work of cancer researchers, the new data was published and saccharin was de-listed as a human carcinogen.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...fact-sheet

Your "anecdote" is not an example of science (and government policy based on science) gone wrong, but science gone right. Seriously, would you rather the government had heard about the cancer link in lab rats and then failed to warn us that there's a known cancer link from this product? And when it became clear from further research that the link did not apply to us, the government acted to remove that warning from saccharin and to let everyone know it was now considered safe.

So what WAS your objection to the 1970s cancer study, exactly? It was not wrong.

Your implications from this story are not only bunk, they are dishonest.

Reading through his posts, it seems Walter, the skeptic, is using an appeal to authority, himself, and is probably extremely frustrated that everyone isn't just accepting his "stories" as fact. Correlation does not imply causation, except it Walter's world it does.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: