Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Information really is beautiful: Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus

This argument is so much less exciting when there's actual information on the table.

Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus


And just one for Al, "sigh."

10 comments:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

Where did you get your science degree?

Since when is science achieved by "consensus"?

"Consensus" is opinion, not science. Reason and knowledge does not require "consensus".

You may resume your global warming religous faith, ignoring irregular sun solar flare activity, natural emitting CO2 via geothermal events, and unpredictable solar winds affecting the earth's temperature.

Those things are always left out of the religous global warming consensus. Does the global warming bible forbid its followers to talk about sun flares, natural geothermal CO2 events, and solar winds?

I dare you to post this, since you have been deleting all my other global warming comments.

Mpeterson said...

Kevin,

It's not polite to lie about the blog that allows you to conduct your therapy in public -- as embarrassing as I find it for you sometimes. I haven't deleted a thing.

I suspect my science background is much more extensive than yours, but I don't think you care about the science. Here's why: while reasoning (which you're equivocating on here to make your point) doesn't require consensus, if by reasoning you mean apriori and deductive reasoning, science doesn't depend on deductive reasoning -- it depends on inductive reasoning -- which is the kind of knowledge that does require consensus/confirmation among many reasoners.

Shoot Kevin, you could have found all of this on Wikipedia, but here you've tricked me into wasting 5 minutes of my life explaining it to you -- and for free.

So, as we've seen, increasingly, nothing you've said here actually makes any real sense... it's just playing cats cradle with words.

John Jost said...

Kevin "Troll" Scheunemann,

You are the last one who should use the words reason or knowledge, or call others religious. You run a DQ, I believe. When did that make you expert enough in geothermal events and solar winds to disparage lifetime scientists?

Worse than that: I can understand that large corporations will continue to deny climate change while we die off, in order to avoid the costs of fixing the problem and to keep the next quarter highly profitable. But you, in your small business, only have to work as clean as you can. Why are you doing their PR work? Why?

You should go comment at Owen Robinson's Boots and Sabers insanity, they would love you there. Better yet, start your own blog. As my mother would have reminded me, criticism is easy, but art is difficult.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I've made at least 4 other brilliant posts on (alleged) global warming, on other warming articles, and they have not made it.

Are you saying there is a non-censor explaination?

If so, I'll retract my censor accusation.

Doesn't "inductive" reasoning require faith?

Why does the "inductive" reasoning leave out solar flare cycles, which can be unpredictable, solar winds, and unpredictable geothermal events?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

So if I live a "pro-carbon lifestyle", Mark Peterson supports forcing an "anti-carbon" religion on me?

I always saw you as someone squarely against forcing religion on others.

Mpeterson said...

I haven't seen a single one these posts Kevin although I can know tautologically about their brilliance....

--but Mr. Jost here just woke me up.

My bad for not recognizing the troll sooner. Fool me once, shame on you.

But the trolling -- or more accurately, porcupining -- does make sense now, since you can't possibly believe any of the comments you've been making, and I should have known better than to assume you were just fooling around or being amusingly disengenuous.

So, should I post any of your future trolls? Or will you promise to stop doing it?

Example: "doesn't inductive reasoning require faith?"

Seriously, we both know you know better. So, you'll have to conduct your education elsewhere. Try Owen's. They'll agree with everything you say. It'll be more fun.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

John,

So reason, and knowledge and calling others out for being religious is strictly the perview of liberals?

Mpeterson said...

Grin... okay. I'm calling shenanigans.

Here's the last question I'm going to ask you Kevin:

Did you know your last question to John was an example of a fallacy of complex question when you asked it?

If you did, then I'll let you keep posting.

If you think it's a real question, then I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting.

Kevin scheunemann said...

Mark,

Of course I knew it. I had an excellent logic professor.

But you said I play "cats in the cradle" with words....isn't that what you are doing with terms like "teabagger" and "climate change deniers"?

One seeking the truth should use "responsible government advocate" and "pro carbon vegetation enthusiast".

As we can see, its only "cats in the cradle" if the term satisfies the leftist political agenda.

"Diversity" is no longer en vogue?

Mpeterson said...

Grin. So long as you're trolling deliberately and intentionally, I don't mind. I simply had a fear you might be doing it accidentally and earnestly.