Quote:
Originally Posted by chipmunk
Do you agree with your article in its entirety?
You have said a lot of intellectual dishonesty/inability, ideological agenda, evidence denier, etc. Yet you fail or refuse to measure yourself by the same standards.
Here are some of your famous quotes so far:
said, "climate change can lead to an area getting colder or warmer in extremes or extremes in weather anomalies, even if the global averages are higher", yet didn't have an answer to the paper I linked.
talked about all the evidence and counter-evidence, but yet said, "Science doesn't prove. It shows, suggest or demonstrates. You should know that. Prove is a "four letter word" in science."
said, "This is far from debatable. This is established science that is only getting more and more refined", while you couldn't defend the 1 link you eventually posted.
said, "Hypothesis leads to studies (observations), which eventually lead to models to explain processes." Incorrect. An observation leads to questions, and then theories, and then design of an experiment that addresses the hypothesis.
accused me of cherry-picking, yet you are actively doing this yourself.
said, "They were just presenting the data from peer reviewed journals in a format that was digestible for politicians", and, "you are quoting an organization and appealing to evidence stemming from them", yet clinging to IPCC reports.
said, "I agree that providing evidence from the very papers used by chipmunk that he was citing as reliable is very reasonable and should be compelling to chipmunk if he is being intellectually honest", and "Why don’t you actually read the whole paper? It is only a few pages", yet you didn't even comprehend the abstract, nor do you understand what paleontological means.
besides veiled ad hominem, you committed basic logical fallacy of leading the question, and quoted, "the public has become polarized over fundamental questions such as human-caused global warming. Communication strategies to reduce polarization rarely address the underlying cause: ideologically-driven misinformation."
|
You still don’t understand the paper, which clearly demonstrates your ideological filter or ineptitude. You are coming off as a troll and not someone with a PhD. The abstract and the paper are super clear, but the abstract isn’t written by the authors often. It is buy another person paid to paraphrase, and often they cherrypick quotes out of context to present findings, which is why you got confused because you clearly didn’t read the paper, which is plain as day in its findings.
You are getting defensive in light of getting shown a paper that meets your requirements. You set that standard. Not me. You demanded this type of evidence and now that I present it, you are throwing my words back at me because I agree that this study is not enough to sway anyone because one paper can’t do that. The body of evidence in thousands of papers does that, but you seem to continue to reject that verifiable fact.
Everyone here is trying to explain it to you, but you seem to be struggling with the very basics of reading comprehension. Maybe you need to argued less and research more with a more open mind and see what you find. Type global warming into a scholarly database and read papers.