Ophiolite

While I also understand your position and support free speech, I think you will concede that there are some situations where it may justifiably (or at least arguably) be excluded. The standard example given is that of crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I ask you to consider that the maximum number who might perish in such a case would be a few thousands. The number who will die as a consequence of the delays in taking appropriate action to minimise climate change will number in the tens, possibly hundreds, of millions. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the facts, refusing to study the evidence, insisting upon misinterpretation of evidence gleaned from sound sources and reveling in biased propaganda, pushes the boundaries of free speech well into the area headlined "abuse". But, I will concede there were elements of hyperbole in my statement and I also, foolishly, think stupidity should be outlawed. It is also against the forum rules. I have chosen not to report it thus far partly because, like you I believe "it has the added benefit of allowing neutral spectators to see how poorly constructed many arguments denying AGW are". However, if Shelagh fails to respond to your recent request, then enough is enough.

Well, that's just silly. I know for a fact that the world revolves around me.

I am perplexed by this post. Here are some comments, in no particular order. 1. It is difficult to have a lively discussion about something that is so bleeding obvious that it doesn't merit any discussion after the first or second year of secondary school. 2. Since you missed that part of the curriculum here, briefly, is some of the evidence that the Earth is a sphere. a. Ships disappear over the horizon. b. The angle to the midday sun varies along lines of longitude. c. The shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is curved. d. We can fly or sail around the world. (The clue is in the word around.) e. All other sizable, observed heavenly bodies are roughly spherical. f. We have photographs of the planet from space. (And the calculations to put satellites and spacecraft in orbit would not work if the world was not a sphere.) g. There are several more that hopefully you will find in the links provided by other members. 3. If you are concerned about the "spinning" part, you need only contact any of the lunar astronauts and ask them if the same face of the Earth was always visible. 4. I do not intend to be disparaging, but I note that such a tone has crept into my post. I apologise for that. The thing is that several members have given you sound explanations, which you seem unwilling to accept. Perhaps, they have not explained clearly enough. If you feel that is the case please specify one thing that still troubles you and I'll attempt to deal with that.

I have never seen any valid critique of a scientific theory that contained four errors in its opening sentence. After reviewing your later comments throughout the thread I find that that condition remains unchanged. If you are serious about supporting your position you need to critique the theory itself, not a partially inept description of it. I see no evidence that you have even read the original paper. Here it is. I look forward to a proper analysis from you once you have studied what Einstein actually said. Or an acknowledgement that Einstein and the several tens of thousands of scientists who have studied, understood and accepted his theory, may just be better informed than you.

These statements are astounding. These statements are profoundly ignorant. These statements completely ignore the facts. These statements show no concern whatsoever for the future we leave our children and grandchildren. These statements are delusional. These statements may not be criminal, but they damn well ought to be. I shall be dead before the consequences of climate change reach their peak, but I am more than willing to accept a lower standard of living now to protect the future. I am disgusted by those individuals who care not a whit for what we are doing to the environment and are indifferent to the resultant savaging of biodiversity. Ignorance is some excuse for such an attitude, self imposed ignorance is not. In an earlier post you said that the discussion had turned to one about your intelligence. That was not, then, the case. It has now turned into one in which your intelligence is very much on display. Magnifying glasses will be issued on request.

Yes, I completely get that point and am in agreement with it. I am just uncomfortable with arguments that offer a weak example that an opponent can use to distract attention from the central point. Much as I have inadvertently done here.

OK. Are you going to respond to my question, or not? I have asked multiple times and you choose to avoid the question. This is simply unacceptable behaviour. It is rude. It is against forum rules and it is petty. There is more than one way to engage in online bullying and your passive non participation is one of them. Please desist now.

Much less uncertainty than there is in regard to planetary formation theory. I note you have continued to disregard my question on that matter. This is the third or fourth time I have raised it. Will you respond now please, or opt for being impolite?

But none of them, as I recall, are circles. Curves, yes, spheroids, yes, but circles?

This is an unfortunate example. The electron orbital is a fiction. Closer to reality are 3D probability, density clouds. I agree with the rest of your argument, but this illustration using orbitals fails.

I acknowledged this by quoting iNow in post #10. ""There is a component of genetic predisposition, but much more relevant with type 2 diabetes are your diet and activity levels."

You keep saying this, but fail to convince because: You offer no evidence for the claim that the attitude exists and is (implicitly) common. At no time have you offered recognisable definitions of function or form.

I really have to object to this Phi. I believe my credentials in recognising the dangers presented by AGW are well established by my posts on this and other forums. Here you make use of stereotypes, suggesting that anyone in the oil industry is automatically going to be a climate change denier. For the record I have been working in the oil industry for most of my working career, since 1971 and intend to continue until health, boredom or my bosses decide otherwise. A significant proportion of my colleagues share my concerns and I find more deniers outside the industry than in. Anecdotal evidence of course, but it belies your implications. I trust you will refrain from such unwelcome and inaccurate aspersions in future. If you have no plastic components in your home, make use of no gasoline for your transportation and are otherwise pristine in your avoidance of oil consumption, you have a sliver of a right to attack the industry. You do not have a right to attack employees in the industry who are making a net contribution to the global economy at work and are pursuing personal goals in support of environmental issues.

This is a discussion about AGW and peoples attitudes to it. It has nothing to do with your intelligence. Despite repeated requests you seem reluctant to actually discuss the topic in depth. So, once again....Will you now explain why, apparently, you will accept the flawed explanations and models for cancer and evolution and planetary formation, but will not do so for AGW?

Surely Fred's views become understandable when you realise they lack both breadth and depth.

I found this interesting. Do I correctly recall that in another post you said you were an editor? If so I am surprised that you have misread my post. I very carefully said that "you must feel that you are being ganged up on". (Emphasis added.) You are not being ganged up on, you have simply encountered several individuals who have noted the same apparent weaknesses in your position and have sought to help you address these. That addressing could either be by demonstrating that your position is valid, or by changing that position. I also note a peculiar use of the phrase "force of argument". This, in my experience, is generally used to describe a well constructed, strongly supported argument - exactly what you call a "reasoned argument", yet you set these two close synonyms in opposition . Odd! The "force of argument" concept you propose seems tied to your later mentioning of bullying. You imply you are being bullied. I regret you feel this is so. You are simply being challenged on your persistent refusal to explain the basis of your skepticism. At the risk of being accused of bullying I note that such refusal is contrary to forum rules, forum etiquette and is, ultimately, rude. I don't think you are by nature a rude person, so will you now explain why, apparently, you will accept the flawed explanations and models for cancer and evolution and planetary formation, but will not do so for AGW?

I cannot think of a single model in any science that is complete. There may be exceptions - I would be happy to learn of them - but certainly all the models in my own range of interest are incomplete. Plate tectonics: incomplete. Theory of evolution: incomplete. Planetary formation: incomplete. Geomagnetism: incomplete. Abiogenesis: incomplete. The list continues. Models are, by definition, simplifications and therefore are necessarily incomplete. I asked you a question in an earlier post that you chose to avoid answering. I ask you again. Do you accept the current theory for planetary formation? If so, why? The models for that are less complete than for AGW. As several others have pointed out, this is completely untrue! I have devoted considerable effort, over the last dozen years, on at least seven forums, in scores of attempts to do exactly that. Along the way I have seen dozens of others attempting the same thing. A limited number of fools can be found in even the most honourable professions. Certainly, I am scathing about doubters. This is not simply a matter of a doubter l indulging themselves in ignorance. This is not just disappointment about a doubter failing to use critical thinking skills. This is about individuals choosing to ignore the consequence of a major problem, a problem that if not addressed threatens the future of my grandchildren, the human race and the planet's biodiversity. And you think hiding behind a fake skepticism and thereby ignoring a process with those potential consequences does not merit a scathing response? You keep repeating that you are simply skeptical, yet thus far you have offered nothing that justifies that skepticism. Your concern over the limitations of models arises from your ignorance of what a model is. Your references to the man-in-the-street are irrelevant. Your claim that there are objections that have not been met has not, so far, produced any examples. I appreciate that you must feel as if you are being ganged up on. That can't be pleasant. Nor is it pleasant to witness an obviously intelligent person fail to use that intelligence effectively.

As far as I can tell the principal soft parts reside in Mike's woolly thinking.

Kalopin, you imply you are practicing science, yet you clearly do not understand the scientific method. It is not acceptable to tell me that accounts exist, you need to cite them in detail, stipulating page number for information contained in longer works. If you have not provided such properly presented citations within 48 hours I shall conclude that you are either not serious about your claims, or lack the competence to be taken seriously. At present you arguments are laughable.

No, we only agree on the need for more sensitive care of the environment. You do not agree that 1. The reality of AGW is highly probable. 2. You can influence the political will to address the problem. 3. Skeptical relates to holding reasoned reservations about hypotheses, but think instead it can be applied to an unwarranted withholding of provisional acceptance.

Because you are a citizen of a democratic country. As such you can impact the policies pursued by your government that impact on global warming. If I allow you to remain smugly self deprecating, while you simultaneously abuse the meaning of the word sceptical, then I fail in my duty as a citizen and contribute to the continuation of policies that endanger my grandchildren. I am. It would be irresponsible not to. Bollocks, for the reasons noted above. Agreed, but the probable reality of AGW make actions on these items more pressing.

I have always liked the distinction captured in this remark. "The United Kingdom has an excellent climate. It is only its weather that is atrocious."

If I look out of a window and see a car crash in progress, I do not declare to a colleague. "Look, a car crash was in progress some nanoseconds ago, though I have no idea if it is still occurring, since I am basing my assessment on light that reached my eyes and was processed by my brain some time after the events that produced it." Instead I combine my general knowledge of the manner in which car crashes proceed and say "Look, a car is crashing." Why don't you like that approach Fred?

You identify yourself as someone who is interested in astronomy. Will you humour me by answering this question. Do you feel there is a consensus as to how planets are formed? I assure you your answer will be relevant and I shall explain clearly why once the answer is in hand.

You did not try. Earlier you said this: "Ask me one clear question at a time and I will attempt to be helpful." This was after I had asked you one clear question. I then repeated that question. Your response - you run away. Sometimes it is appropriate to accept the official warnings that rightfully stem from attacks on the person. You sir are behaving like a coward and a charlatan. Will you now show me to be wrong in my assessment by actually responding to my request? Or, will you refuse to do so, thereby proving my assessment to be correct? Your choice.