The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: will
About
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:12:43 PM
Number of Posts: 1,030
[0.12% of all post / 0.35 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Big BangTheory
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:10:44 PM
I was pleased to see the return of your name, Barnacle Barney Bill. I seemed to recall enjoying your previous posts... but this most recent one is complete nonsense, full of flawed assumptions and logical fallacies.

Have you suffered a blow to the head since we last saw you, or was I remembering you incorrectly? Think


.
Topic: Meanwhile in Finland
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:01:55 PM
FounDit wrote:
...5 pages of rebuttal and defense of climate change caused by one single dissenter? Five pages! Wow.

It’s not really 5 pages of rebuttal – for that you would have had to present a valid argument to rebut – and it’s not really 5 pages of defence; the issue is settled, there is nothing we, not being experts, can add here that will effect the political, scientific and economic consensus.

It didn’t go unnoticed that you chose, once again, to resort to ad hominem rather than answer my question and say which countries other than USA, Syria and Nicaragua are not part of the political consensus that makes up the Paris agreement, or to name just one scientific body of national or international scientists that reject the scientific consensus on anthropic climate change.

The problem with your overuse of hubris and name calling is that it quickly gets boring and loses its effectiveness at disguising what you are trying to avoid.



Lotje1000 wrote:
I may be wrong, but I think this is what will refers to as 'moving the goal posts'. Feel free to correct me on that, will .

Yes, you are correct. I assumed ‘moving the goal posts’ was internationally understood, my apologies for the assumption

So for example:

Someone sees a picture with snow in it and claims it refutes the myth that global temperatures are rising and melting all the ice caps and snow on the planet

It’s pointed out that weather is not the same as climate, and that the climate is warming due to increased greenhouse gases and this is leading to weather extremes

They change their argument from rising temperatures being a myth – they move the goalposts – to claim rising temperatures are short term natural cycles and all you can prove is cycles because there has never been any evidence of a cycle that hasn't reversed itself.

It’s pointed out that that same evidence for natural cycles is not just short term evidence, it goes back thousands of years and the current increase in temperature, that coincides with increased CO2 emissions, is unprecedented.

They move the goalposts to claim that no one can predict the future, in weather or anything else.

It’s pointed out that predictions of most likely future outcomes, based on current data, is actually exactly how science, economics and societies work.

They move the goalposts from the initial claim of ‘or anything else’ to separating everything else we predict from climate change which is predicting a future for which there is no evidence

It’s pointed out there is overwhelming evidence.

They move the goalposts to claim the evidence has been manipulated and is not definitive.

It’s pointed out that the evidence is definitive, according to the overwhelming scientific consensus, and it would require an unimaginable global conspiracy for that consensus to have manipulated the evidence without peer review picking it up.

They move the goalposts to claim that it is lies and half-truths to say there is an overwhelming consensus.

It’s pointed out that that every Government (bar three) have signed the Paris Agreement and that every single scientific body of national or international scientists supports the consensus. And it’s asked that the lies and half-truths accusation be backed up by some counter examples


They move the goalposts to a post of pure ad hominem attacks and a smugness that barely conceals their damaged pride.

It’s pointed out that their lack of credibility is largely their own fault.

They move the goalposts almost full circle and begin again the process of misrepresenting and stereotyping the global consensus on climate change as a liberal conspiracy of human hating eco-nutjobs.

And whine in another thread about how unfair everyone is. Boo hoo!


.

Topic: Senate Health Care Bill failure and the Trump coalition
Posted: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:40:01 PM
FounDit wrote:
I liked this post, Hope. There is much in it we could discuss, and I think agree on, but unfortunately, it has been my experience that such would not be the outcome. I truly wish we could do that, but too often I find my words changed to mean something I didn't say or intend, and then find four or five others coming at me as well, doing the same thing. It just isn't worth the time and effort. It becomes exhausting to challenge ephemeral rationalizations and trolling.
Ahh... poor baby. If you have the integrity, read back the tread you are clearly referring to and see who starts, and continues, the hubris and the name calling and the stereotyping. You reap what you sow.


.
Topic: Is religion the opium of the people?
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:31:52 AM
Looks like you need to clear up exactly who is the redneck, leonAzul.

I'm certain it's not me. I spend way too much time indoors. Shhh


.
Topic: Meanwhile in Finland
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 11:26:02 AM
FouDit wrote:
And it was you who just mentioned weather when we were talking climate change.

I mentioned weather only in direct response to your comment of:
FounDit wrote:
And no one can predict the future, in weather or anything else.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you think that people can’t read or follow what has actually been said?

And I wrote:
That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to your habit of changing your argument from, for example, claiming we should not act because we can’t predict the future – which I’ve addressed above – to arguing that the consensus doesn’t exist or is a conspiracy of lefties – which I predict you will now do in response to what I’ve addressed above.

Then, predictively, in response to my point about the scientific, political and economic consensus... FounDit wrote:
This paragraph is so filled with fantasy…

Suffice it to say nothing in it is true…

You can lie all you want…

Are you really so logically challenged that you see these statements as the equivalent of predicting a future for which there is no evidence?

I also wrote:
The current overwhelming consensus disagrees with your policy of wait and see. That consensus includes every Nation on the planet (except USA, Syria and Nicaragua), every single scientific body of national or international scientists (including since 2007 the last stalwarts of denial, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) and just about every international business (including ExxonMobil and every other petrochemical company).

to which FounDit wrote:
Another paragraph of lies and half-truths. See? I can simply say things too, and because I say them, they are true.

Okay then, which other countries are not part of the political consensus that makes up the Paris agreement. Name one scientific body of national or international scientists that reject the scientific consensus on anthropic climate change.

FounDit wrote:
And it's really convenient that all of the climate change predictions are based so far into the future

Decadal climate predictions, that have correctly predicted short term increases in global tempretures, are routinely rejected by climate denialist as being weather trends… again, moving the goalposts.


.
Topic: Is religion the opium of the people?
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:47:47 AM
leonAzul wrote:
Are you sure you are not a "red neck"? That last comment sounds like something straight out of the John Birch Society's playbook.


My last comment or the last comment that you’ve quoted, belonging to Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1?

To be clear, I don’t believe we should base any ideologies on beliefs without reason, and I don’t think we should base ideologies of flawed reasoning. The latter is harder to define.

I’ll take your word for the rest of your post, as I confess I have no idea what it means Think


.

Topic: Senate Health Care Bill failure and the Trump coalition
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:45:47 AM
FounDit wrote:
It will take quite a bit of time...


FounDit wrote:
Not a prediction at all.


Your grasp of the English language is failing you again Whistle


.
Topic: Meanwhile in Finland
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:15:41 AM
Actually I don't mind a bit of fantasy, it's the wheeling out of the sonic screwdriver as a solve all device when the plot line inevitably breaks down that has me turning off. Not talking


.
Topic: Effects of Negative Politiking.
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:11:51 AM
Nicely put, TMe.
Topic: Senate Health Care Bill failure and the Trump coalition
Posted: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:11:16 AM
FounDit wrote:
And here, progpen and Hope demonstrate once again why the political Left has no clue what's really happening. But it will become more clear with time. Remember — it took 50 years to get to this point. It will take quite a bit of time to make the necessary changes to it, but it has begun.

Is this a prediction of the future, FounDit. Shame on you


.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.