Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Huh? There is no 'burden of proof' in science. That is your invention.

So you believe that science is a matter of belief?

Where did I say that?

It seems to follow.

No, it does not.

If you don't need evidence for anything all you got left is belief.
It's worked fine for the old religions so far, seems to be working
just as well for new religions like AGW.

Now, back to 'your fallacy' about how science is done.

It's not about science, the word is used exactly zero times.

Look, when you learn to read, get back to me.

Cheers,

Rich

Quote:
"Personally the notion that if AGW is not disproved it stands
disturbing. AGW does not need to be disproved, you guys need
to provide positive evidence, it needs to be proved. Lack of
disproof is not proof, this is idiotic and one of the many
logical fallacies that are the mainstay of AGW belief."


And I'll repeat, there is no 'burden of proof' in science.

Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Huh? There is no 'burden of proof' in science. That is your
invention.

So you believe that science is a matter of belief?

Where did I say that?

It seems to follow.

No, it does not.

If you don't need evidence for anything all you got left is belief.

Observation is a fundamental aspect of doing science. So, you are still
making stuff up.

Now, back to 'your fallacy' about how science is done.

It's not about science, the word is used exactly zero times.

What makes you so special? That you make demands, that you make up, that
go beyond the sphere of science is pure hubris on your part.

But you go ahead and believe otherwise.

On Dec 29, 4:11 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Huh? There is no 'burden of proof' in science. That is your
invention.

So you believe that science is a matter of belief?

Where did I say that?

It seems to follow.

No, it does not.

If you don't need evidence for anything all you got left is belief.

Observation is a fundamental aspect of doing science. So, you are still
making stuff up.

Now, back to 'your fallacy' about how science is done.

It's not about science, the word is used exactly zero times.

What makes you so special? That you make demands, that you make up, that
go beyond the sphere of science is pure hubris on your part.

But you go ahead and believe otherwise.

He didn't read:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._consensus.php

but I expect you have, Dan.

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Huh? There is no 'burden of proof' in science. That is your
invention.

So you believe that science is a matter of belief?

Where did I say that?

It seems to follow.

No, it does not.

If you don't need evidence for anything all you got left is belief.

Observation is a fundamental aspect of doing science. So, you are still
making stuff up.

Those observations are your evidence, your 'burden of proof' if
you will.

Now, back to 'your fallacy' about how science is done.

It's not about science, the word is used exactly zero times.

What makes you so special?

Trying to change the subject, eh?

Cheers,

Rich (who is really special)

Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Huh? There is no 'burden of proof' in science. That is your
invention.

So you believe that science is a matter of belief?

Where did I say that?

It seems to follow.

No, it does not.

If you don't need evidence for anything all you got left is belief.

Observation is a fundamental aspect of doing science. So, you are
still making stuff up.

Those observations are your evidence, your 'burden of proof' if
you will.

You have it backwards. And if you have an observation that counters some
hypothesis, show that. But don't come along and make up your own rules
for how science is done.

Now, back to 'your fallacy' about how science is done.

It's not about science, the word is used exactly zero times.

What makes you so special?

Trying to change the subject, eh?

Not at all, why did you snip? Oh, that's right, you have an agenda, and
you are 'special'...

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Huh? There is no 'burden of proof' in science. That is your
invention.

So you believe that science is a matter of belief?

Where did I say that?

It seems to follow.

No, it does not.

If you don't need evidence for anything all you got left is belief.

Observation is a fundamental aspect of doing science. So, you are
still making stuff up.

Those observations are your evidence, your 'burden of proof' if
you will.

You have it backwards. And if you have an observation that counters some
hypothesis, show that. But don't come along and make up your own rules
for how science is done.

The issue, which you've not yet understood was *logic*.

Personally the notion that if AGW is not disproved it stands
disturbing. AGW does not need to be disproved, you guys need
to provide positive evidence, it needs to be proved. Lack of
disproof is not proof, this is idiotic and one of the many
logical fallacies that are the mainstay of AGW belief.

Cheers,

Rich

Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Those observations are your evidence, your 'burden of proof' if
you will.

You have it backwards. And if you have an observation that counters
some hypothesis, show that. But don't come along and make up your own
rules for how science is done.

The issue, which you've not yet understood was *logic*.

Personally the notion that if AGW is not disproved it stands
disturbing. AGW does not need to be disproved, you guys need
to provide positive evidence, it needs to be proved. Lack of
disproof is not proof, this is idiotic and one of the many
logical fallacies that are the mainstay of AGW belief.

If you want to take AGW to court, that is your business. Good luck with
your endeavor.

BTW, do you plan to have twelve peers deliberate or pass judgment for
your self?

Rich wrote:
on't come along and make up your own
rules for how science is done.

The issue, which you've not yet understood was *logic*.

Personally the notion that if AGW is not disproved it stands
disturbing. AGW does not need to be disproved, you guys need
to provide positive evidence, it needs to be proved. Lack of
disproof is not proof, this is idiotic and one of the many
logical fallacies that are the mainstay of AGW belief.

Cheers,

Rich


What part[s] of the concept do you dispute?

The "warming" part? The "man-made" part? That CO2 and methane are GHGs?

David wrote:
Rich wrote:
on't come along and make up your own
rules for how science is done.

The issue, which you've not yet understood was *logic*.

Personally the notion that if AGW is not disproved it stands
disturbing. AGW does not need to be disproved, you guys need
to provide positive evidence, it needs to be proved. Lack of
disproof is not proof, this is idiotic and one of the many
logical fallacies that are the mainstay of AGW belief.

Cheers,

Rich

What part[s] of the concept do you dispute?

"[T]he concept"?

The "warming" part?

Some parts are warming, some parts are cooling. Some parts are wetter,
some parts are dryer. The climate's always been in a state of flux.

The "man-made" part?

This part was a forgone conclusion in 1990.

That CO2 and methane are GHGs?

Since it's OK for China and India to emit unlimited GHG, they can't
be much of a problem, can they? Even Al Gore's carbon footprint is
at least 20x average, but being as important as he is I can see that
a private jet and a 24x7 heated pool are necessities for his humble
life.

Cheers,

Rich

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Rich wrote:

Those observations are your evidence, your 'burden of proof' if
you will.

You have it backwards. And if you have an observation that counters
some hypothesis, show that. But don't come along and make up your own
rules for how science is done.

The issue, which you've not yet understood was *logic*.

Personally the notion that if AGW is not disproved it stands
disturbing. AGW does not need to be disproved, you guys need
to provide positive evidence, it needs to be proved. Lack of
disproof is not proof, this is idiotic and one of the many
logical fallacies that are the mainstay of AGW belief.

If you want to take AGW to court, that is your business.

Another subject change.

Good luck with your endeavor.

Good luck with your hallucinations.

BTW, do you plan to have twelve peers deliberate or pass judgment for
your self?

Or maybe it's too much Christmas cheer. Better stay off the roads.

Cheers,

Rich