On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...

You quoted my response to Bob, you did not directly respond to any of the facts I put forth. Sharing information that doesn't address the original information is not responding.

Yes, I quoted your response to Bob, but I was responding to your comments about "consensus".

You're young

so you're probably unaware of how many times, not just in the last 20 years but in the last 50 years even, that we've been told that the earth will soon be destroyed.

And no matter how many times these predictions prove false, the people who made the predictions never admit they were wrong and are generally celebrated by the left.

Do a google search on tipping point. You'll be able to find many more predictions than the few I sighted.

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

Of COURSE experience has a part in intelligence.

Of COURSE I will learn more as I age.

Of COURSE I don't automatically know everything at 16.

I don't claim that to be true, because I DO have a lot to learn.

Comments about my age DO NOT belong in an INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION.

To belittle me and attempt to bolster one's argument based upon my age is ridiculous.

Using someone else's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!

But it's perfectly acceptable to belittle someone based upon their young age.

Now THERE is a flaw in logic.

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

Of COURSE experience has a part in intelligence.

Of COURSE I will learn more as I age.

Of COURSE I don't automatically know everything at 16.

I don't claim that to be true, because I DO have a lot to learn.

Comments about my age DO NOT belong in an INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION.

To belittle me and attempt to bolster one's argument based upon my age is ridiculous.

Using someone else's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!

But it's perfectly acceptable to belittle someone based upon their young age.

Now THERE is a flaw in logic.

Whose logic was that exactly?

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

Choose to refute a point sorry.

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

Choose to refute a point sorry.

??? "Choose to refute a point sorry"

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You are sensative about your age. Do you think experience has no part in intelligence? Do you not learn more as you age? Or do you automatically know everything you ever will at 16?

And just because one does not choose to Reggie a point in no way makes it irrefutable. That is a fairly substantial flaw in logic.

Choose to refute a point sorry.

??? "Choose to refute a point sorry"

I was clarifying a misspelling.

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
That calls for you to know the operation of my mind and again you are wrong.

On Jun 27, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
You make an assumption as to WHY he brought up your age.

But to say "you are young and have not experienced..." is a statement of FACT. It upsets you tremendously I get that. But fact is every time I have seen you claim to be belittled, it is a misunderstanding on your part. That is only what I have seen. It might not be all the time but it is the times I have seen.

If someone is talking about something specific that helps if you have EXPERIENCED and that bolsters then sure it matters. If it is a point that when you are having an intellectual conversation about actual experienced based things, that because of your age you have not had a lot of or any experience with then yes it is valid. There are some things you can only get from experience and not from books. It is what it is and you may not like it but there are times that it is valid, and is not belittling. It is just what it is.

I think you are over sensitive about age right now and want to be taken seriously. I take you seriously. You are obviously intelligent. No need to just jump to offended immediately.

On Jun 27, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Anand,

I neither mentioned your age to bolster my argument or to diminish yours. I was simply pointing out that I understood your questioning the number of times we have been warned of a ‘tipping point’ as you don’t have the life experience of having lived the past 40 or 50 years hearing of a new dire threat of the end of the world every five or so years. I would think that you would agree with that.

Anand said, “Using someone else’s race, sex, sexucal orientation, etc. to belittle what they are saying would cause outrage!”

Ha! Not if you’re posting on NVMS thread of the café! Besides, if the point is legitimate, why should it. For instance, landmark will tell you that if you’re white, there is no way that you can form an opinion of the black experience. I could point to countless other examples.

I was attempting to be polite in my response to you. You haven’t, (as yet), proven yourself to be a smug, condescending, self-righteous, self-important twit like at least one other person has here so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, your continued use of the pejorative, “denier”, is putting you close to the edge. Skeptics neither deny climate, science or global warming for that matter.

Anand said, “I am well aware of the argument that because prior prediction prove false, current predictions must also be false.”

And yet that wasn’t my argument at all. It would be better to state that “Repeated, provably false predictions by a body should call into suspicion continued similar predictions.”

Have you heard the term, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”? If someone tells you something that turns out to be false over and over and you continue to believe their statements, the blame lies with you as much as the person telling you the false statements.

As to the meat of your original post. I think it can be summed up as, “There are a LOT of scientists who endorse the IPCC Assessment Report, so it must be true!”

First off, this is the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’. Secondly, there are also a number of scientists who disagree with major conclusions of the report. And finally, but probably most importantly, what exactly IS the scientific consensus?

If you ask 1000 scientists if the earth has warmed in the last 100 years and has a portion of that warming been caused by man, I suspect that close to 100% would say yes.

However, if you ask the same 1000 scientists if they believe that if nothing is done within the next 100 years, will mankind suffer huge and irreparable damage, (or name your own dire prediction), you are going to get a huge variance of opinion from a small percentage saying, “Yes! Absolutely!”, to a large percentage saying, “Probably not”, and some percentage saying, “Of course not!” Once you get past the question of, “Has the earth warmed?”, you get very little consensus about anything else.

Anand said, “It’s really scary how much of a partisan split there is on these scientific facts.”

I’ll take this statement to say, “this entire topic has become extremely politicized”, and you would be correct. You have one side that wants to use this topic to push for all kinds of government controls and spending and you have another side that doesn’t.

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
This country seems more polarized than ever.

On Jun 27, 2015, Intrepid wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 27, 2015, Anand Khalsa wrote:
This country seems more polarized than ever.

Than when you were twelve years old?
Sorry, I know your sensitive about your age, but you gave me a chuckle there. And yes, to your point there has been much discussion on gerrymandering and narrowing of media demographics over the years so you make a valid point.

It's also worth noting that the U.S. was pretty polarized in the 60s too, but in different ways that have fortunately come to pass. And I guess you can say that it was polarized in both the 1860s and the 1960s while we're at it.