I have a friend in Texas, she emailed me the following message

There is no such thing as a "climate scientist". There is no science about climate, since climate is not quantitative.

I don't "rely on experts" for anything. Yes, some people are much more studied and/or apt in a particular area than other people are, and yes, it is generally a good idea to get multiple opinions before making a decision, but to allow them to do your thinking for you is to outsource your thinking to them.

I'm here if they would like to come onto this forum and have a discussion with me.

Yes, I can.

Let's start with John's introduction paragraph:

Explaining climate change [undefined buzzword] science & rebutting global warming [undefined buzzword] misinformation
Scientific skepticism is healthy. [There is no such thing as "scientific skepticism"; there is just skepticism... Maybe he means "skepticism of proposed theories"?]. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. [Here, he uses the term "climate change denial". This is the language of a religious fundamentalist, not of a scientist.] Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence [Here, John's religious fundamentalism is coming out in full force again. Science does not make use of supporting evidence; it only makes use of conflicting evidence. It is that conflicting evidence which falsifies theories.] that supports man-made global warming [global warming is an undefined buzzword; utterly meaningless... I do realize that he is referring to his religious belief that the Earth is increasing in temperature] and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. [The typical retort of a religious fundamentalist. I do my own thinking; I don't rely upon blogs, op-eds, or anything of the sort] This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? [Yes, my arguments do. My arguments are based on the Church of Global Warming's denial of the laws of thermodynamics, the stefan boltzmann law, and their denial of logic and mathematics] What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? [Who gives a schiff?! "Peer review" and "scientific literature" (literature about science?) are not science.]

In this opening paragraph alone, I can tell that this John guy is a gullible religious fundamentalist moron.

 

Yes, I can... but I'm not going to go through all 198 points though... Pick out a few of them and I would be more than glad to go through them with you and explain where and why John is incorrect...

 

I disagree, it's just it doesn't match your agenda or choice of acceptable criteria..

 

Is your position that power is more reliable in Dem controlled states? Also, from the many Covid threads where the last president had "blood on his hands" wouldn't Biden be responsible as this happened under his watch?

 

Was Biden president when TX set up their infrastructure? How can he be held responsible for something that took place BEFORE he got into office?

 

Good point, he had no control of what the state did. How much control did the previous president have in, lets say, California?

 

In regards to what?

 

Government response and the results that followed.

 

Response to what? Either be specific or get lost. I don’t have he patience for these games.

 

Climate science, aka, 'environmental science' 'environmental studies' 'science of climate change' is a science taught in many universities.

Now, if you are going to sit there and smugly declare there is no such thing, fine. Academia teaches it, and who am I, a lay person, to believe? Some smug dude on PF or academia?

Excuse me if I go with academia.

If you are wrong on that point, and you are wrong on that point, then the odds are you are wrong on your other points. (particularly when you are willing to use cheap shots like 'who gives a schiff?" evidence of smugness) etc?

You willingness to make broad swipes & leaping conclusions, such as

In this opening paragraph alone, I can tell that this John guy is a gullible religious fundamentalist moron.

Hardly the caliber of argument of a scientist would offer. No evidence of religion, that I could find.

You are therefore, dismissed.

"Skeptical Science" website endorsements

https://skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml

"Skeptical Science is without doubt one of the best sites to go to when you are looking for trustworthy sources about climate change and concise debunking of climate myths. You would think that a site like this would be largely unneeded given the very strong agreement among scientists about the basic facts in the field. Unfortunately, that is not the case. A steady stream of misinformation is poured out over the internet, often from the same limited set of people and always lacking proper scientific sources.

Skeptical Science is invaluable in exposing these relentlessly recycled myths and providing solid and reliable evidence to counteract suspicious claims about the science of climate change"

Peter Roessingh
Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics

"Skeptical Science is a fantastic resource for debunking misinformation about climate change. The articles and materials are all grounded in the scientific literature, and presented in an approachable and understandable way. It is a particularly great resource for helping students and other young people separate the facts from the myths."

Simon Donner
Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia
"Skeptical Science is the first place I send people with climate questions to help them find answer with clear explanations, peer-reviewed science, and guidance to more details for the truly curious. And climate deniers hate it because it debunks their nonsense with facts."

Peter Gleick
President-Emeritus, Pacific Institute
Member, US National Academy of Sciences


And many others, and you want me to believe YOU?

 

No need to get unfriendly. I don't buy either argument.

 

No, the post is about Texas's incompetence. The free market system they chose (off the national grid), chose to ignore opportunities for safeguards because of costs assuming that Texas would never get that cold, noting most other states on the national grid do, indeed, winterize their systems, despite costs because they have to by federal law ( so the debate is a nationalized system vs a privatized one searching for more profits. At least that is what I'm getting from her argument ).

ERCOT was warned about this years ago.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bu...d-again-faces-scrutiny-over-cold-15955392.php

To start, experts say, power generators and regulators failed to heed the lessons of 2011 — or for that matter, 1989. In the aftermath of the Super Bowl Sunday blackout a decade ago, federal energy officials warned the grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas or ERCOT, that Texas power plants had failed to adequately weatherize facilities to protect against cold weather.

 

I wasn’t being unfriendly. Just being direct.

 

Logic is employed in sciences, lended to it from philosophy.

Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-19th century). More recently, logic has been studied in cognitive science, which draws on computer science, linguistics, philosophy and psychology, among other disciplines.

Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do. ... The needs of math arose based on the wants of society. The more complex a society, the more complex the mathematical needs. (source: www.livescience.com )

A scholarly treatise, "Is mathematics a science" ?

They are not natural sciences, but in a college, where would one fine "math", in the philosophy departments? Probably in the math and science departments, i.e, they are associated. But, if you want to nitpick, fine.

Who cares?

I think what you are doing is narrowing the definition of 'science' to the natural sciences, but you are just nitpicking, and I'm not. Science uses math and logic, so why the nitpicking? The treatise covers the gamut of such nuance. Okay, it's not a science, but it's frickin' nerdy stuff like science is.

http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

 

Seems as if you don't wish to learn and wish to keep practicing the Church of Global Warming religion. Fine with me.

 

Math, Logic, and Science are all different things.

Math and Logic are not 'sciences'...

 

You made a point "why keep voting for Republicans." Do you believe power where Dems are in control is more reliable? Also, I believe that things that happened under the previous president's watch were "on his hands" Does this president get the same of does he get a pass.

Its called a dodge. If you are taking the "Blood on his hands" position, why wouldn't the same apply here?

 

I’ve dodged nothing. I have no idea what you were referring to. Hence why I asked you to be specific.

 

Here is the simple question again. If you never took that position, it wasn't for you.

Also, from the many Covid threads where the last president had "blood on his hands" wouldn't Biden be responsible as this happened under his watch?

 

What blood do you think Biden has on his hands?
I wouldn’t say Trump has blood on his hands but he could have done a hell of a lot more to get more people to take COVID more seriously.

 

I have a friend in Chicago who said obama is a scumbag.....but then we already knew that.

 

Thank you for DIGGING a deep HOLE for yourself to fall into!

Under the Obama/Biden Administration they had PLANNED for a RESPONSE to a Pandemic occurring that YOUR biggest *LOSER* could have used it to MITIGATE the impact if he hadn't already TRASHED it beforehand.

So POINTING your finger at Biden just ended up pointing THREE fingers right back at YOUR biggest *LOSER* since HE was RESPONSIBLE for SCRAPPING the CONTINGENCY plan that would have kept Americans ALIVE under his watch.

So what's the view like down at the bottom of that deep hole you just dug for yourself?

 

I find it amusing that you levy criticism of terms you deem as 'meaningless buzzwords' then turn right around and pepper your argument with such intellect betraying niceties as "religious fundamental moron" and 'Global Warming Religion".

Your replies are vastly inconsistent with the caliber of reply I would expect of scholarship, a modicum of which I should think would be expected on a subject pertinent to the environmental sciences ( which you smugly assert is not a science) the kind which would pique my interest for further discourse, as I am a lay person.

If you are going to challenge scholarship and science, with vacuous declarations that do not rise above 'rant' in caliber, you have done little to demonstrate you are worthy of continued debate on this subject, all of which has nothing to do with my desire to learn. Therefore, (and, once, again) you are dismissed.

 

So what.