Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

Originally Posted by Denziloe

But... it's a positive claim and you're the one making it.

Are you trolling?

The original claim is the positive claim in question. Usually I think the "burden of proof" concept is horseshit because both sides should be ready to provide evidence to support their claims and exclaiming that a lack of evidence or proof on one side being evidence for the opposite argument being true, or at least the other being false, is a logical fallacy. However, as long as you are going to try and play that game, know that the original claim was that global warming is occurring, and as such the burden of proof would in fact lie with those making that claim. The claim to the case being otherwise is not a positive claim unless you treat the situation as if global warming has already been proven and one is trying to disprove it. That is where you are mistaken, because global warming makes a specific statement in regards to climate change where as climate change in general refers to... well, it's rather obvious, is it not? So, given that the entire debate here is hinging on whether or not global warming is indeed a thing, his claim is not to the positive, but the negative, thus the burden of proof lies on the side claiming it exists. Do not get it twisted.

Originally Posted by snoop

The original claim is the positive claim in question. Usually I think the "burden of proof" concept is horseshit because both sides should be ready to provide evidence to support their claims and exclaiming that a lack of evidence or proof on one side being evidence for the opposite argument being true, or at least the other being false, is a logical fallacy. However, as long as you are going to try and play that game, know that the original claim was that global warming is occurring, and as such the burden of proof would in fact lie with those making that claim. The claim to the case being otherwise is not a positive claim unless you treat the situation as if global warming has already been proven and one is trying to disprove it. That is where you are mistaken, because global warming makes a specific statement in regards to climate change where as climate change in general refers to... well, it's rather obvious, is it not? So, given that the entire debate here is hinging on whether or not global warming is indeed a thing, his claim is not to the positive, but the negative, thus the burden of proof lies on the side claiming it exists. Do not get it twisted.

This makes no coherent sense. That's simply not the claim at hand. Yes, global warming is a positive statement and the burden of proof for that lies on the claimant... but my post isn't talking about that. It's referring to the claim that "the climate scientists were were saying there would be catastrophic changes by 2014". This is a separate claim, and whoever makes it should clearly be able to back it up with more than an anecdote.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

This makes no coherent sense. That's simply not the claim at hand. Yes, global warming is a positive statement and the burden of proof for that lies on the claimant... but my post isn't talking about that. It's referring to the claim that "the climate scientists were were saying there would be catastrophic changes by 2014". This is a separate claim, and whoever makes it should clearly be able to back it up with more than an anecdote.

This all started because of the original post and the topic at hand. I agree if he wants to use that argument he should back it up, but the fact of the matter is you are doing a poor job picking and choosing your battles right now, because no matter the outcome of your little sub-argument, neither argument stands to gain any supporting evidence. It's a waste of time and the longer both of you argue about it, the stupider both of you, your opinions, and the side of the argument your originally supported look.

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't need sources. The burden of proof is on you.

I think that this shows that you "don't have a leg to stand on" here. Thank you for exposing one of the many weaknesses of the deniers...namely throwing out unsourced or weakly sourced claims.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

As mentioned earlier in the thread, back in the late seventies/early eighties the conjured monster was a new ice age.
...
Merry pre-Christmas!

This was also addressed "earlier in the thread" by me:

Those warnings were mostly media driven. "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." - SkepticalScience (survey of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 regarding warming or cooling of the Earth, found that 42 out of 49 predicted warming not cooling).

And as far as global warming...see the article "Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made" (survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed science papers) in the Guardian and elsewhere. These are peer reviewed papers.

And a sincere early Merry Christmas to you. We can still agree on some lucid dreaming points I'm sure and I have in the past Vodmer.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Much to the contrary, I'm very well informed about the subject. I have particular interest in the "hockey stick" hypothesis, which was either brought about by complete ineptitude, or by an outright desire to deceive.
...
I have seen the whole development in the movement against capitalism over the past 40 years (yes, this is about capitalism - it was NEVER about the environment), and when I say that the replacement for "Climate change" is being produced right now, it would be safe for you to believe it. It will happen, because "climate change" doesn't work any more. Reality took its thunder away.

It is very hard to convince conspiracy theorists. At least we know why you feel so strong. For some reason 97% of scientist want to see the downfall of capitalism...is that what you are saying? As far as the hockey stick...that has been shot down: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Originally Posted by snoop

The original claim is the positive claim in question.

Again 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is happening and that it is man made.

This quick response will have to do for now...super busy.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Again 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is happening and that it is man made.

This quick response will have to do for now...super busy.

Not good enough, I don't care what your excuse is. You might as well save yourself the time if you are going to put in the minimal effort. I'm finished wasting my own time stating that it's a waste of time to continue trying to convince anybody otherwise about what climate scientists say. I'm fine with wasting my time in ways I want to do so, so as long as you are going to keep pursuing this argument, then I'm going to hold you to it and if you try and take any shortcuts I will point any of them out and destroy what fragments of possible truth you are trying to get out there and definitely any of the false information you think you can get away with trying to confuse us with. Do a thorough job, or you are just going to wind up looking at best, ignorant, and at worse, trying to manipulate others into believing a controversial subject to push some hidden agenda.