I am. And if you think you have defeated them you are wrong. Those that you captured are either wannabes or idiots, and my flaming ninjas are not idiots

Samurye.

Curses! You won't stop me, though. I will still destroy the planet!

Okay - I'm going to say, pre-emptively, that at this point Luckmann I at least am thoroughly confused by what, if anything, you were attempting to say regarding the need or lack thereof of debating whether claimat change exists and whether, if so, it is attributable to man, purely setting aside the (Not imo funny, but I don't care that much) presumed sarcastic nature of the holocaust comment.

I originally assumed it was in the nature of "Can't we agree that polution is a problem without needing aa additional  catastrophe to motivate us?", but at this point, you seem to have said "No, that's not it", and I haven't the foggiest where you are going with the whole question unless you simply feel it's too politicized for anyone to rationally convince anyone else - in which case I disagree, and feel that the argument about whether reasoned debate can ever convince anyone is highly politicized and wish those that think it can't would quit trying to convince me of their point of view - {G}.

That said . . .

Sorry, but no, I don't accept your fundamental premise that we have to do some overarching study to confirm what thousands of smaller studies have already shown. Given insufficient data, it is always possible that five blind people describing various aspects of the elephant are in fact looking at something else - but after the fiftieth, one hundredth, two hundredth report, calling for additional studies saying we want ONE blind person to go over the elephant square inch by square inch duplicating the work done by the other 200 blind people - no, it's no longer asking for some reasonable doubt to be dispeled.

Particularly when, with apologies, this is the twentieth time the same group of people have asked for 'just one more more really comprehensive study', to back up the last 19 more comprehensive studies that all back up the same picture of an elephant we could have drawn with the descriptions of the first fifty people that told us "Hey - there's an elephant. Here. It's in the middle of the room!".

You're long past the point I believe you don't believe in the descriptions. I now believe you and yours just don't believe in elephants, regardless of how detailed the description is.

I'm sure you don't want to get into that debate, given the extraordinary inadequacy of the intelligent design movement, although I think that gives everyone a cue as to how deeply your misapprehensions regarding what qualifies as science go. I particularly like the parallels between your insistence on "Gee, one more, really comprehensive climate measurement would convince me" and the insistence of creationists (Putting a lab coat on does not turn a fundamentalist into a scientist, nor does calling it "Intelligent Design" make it "Not Creationism". Sorry.) that there if there were just a few more missing links found above and beyond the ones found so far, they would be convinced.

Sorry, but I believe we've heard that song before. The most famous lyrics are probably the ones where the fundies claimed it was just impossible for amino acids to form without divine intervention, before that was disproved, then it was natural protein synthesis, then RNA couldn't form naturally . . . and as each of these was discovered and verified,  it turned out that it was that all important next step that couldn't happen without divine intervention.

And then, on top of everything else - you  posit, but provide absolutely no evidence for, some 'personal motivation' for them to ignore your position. "It's not a conspiracy, it's just a vast array of people personally motivated to ignore all the evidence that would prove my position!".

Mmmmm Hmmmmm. Right.

The best philosophical observation about science is that it is falsifiable. We know that something is scientific, because it makes predictions that can be tested and verified or disproved.

The only falsifiable prediction you make is "If we wait and see, despite all the evidence of climate change, you'll see it doesn't happen!". No theory to be debated, no underlying principles to argue, no evidence to present - you're irrational in the same sense a drunk saying 'No, watch, I can drive' because the last time he drove drunk he didn't crash is irrational.

Sorry, no, you're not showing any signs of being able to walk a line of straight logic and are showing every sign of fundamentalist poisoning in your brain, so no, you can't drive. That doesn't guarantee a sober driver won't crash the car too, but having a sober rational driver makes the odds of surviving immensely better.

Oh - I've done my research on this. I just happen to read the research that has passed peer review.

You have chosen to read the 'research' that gets posted in the Washington times, by people that can't pass peer review.

Jonnan

Everything else have just been responses to questions or remarks directed at me.

Oh, no, I'm answering that -

Because the math they use is an entirely inappropriate attempt to treat a humongous radioactive iron core as a black body problem - When Lord kelvin tried it, it was in fact logical - because when *he* did that math, radioactivity was not yet known. But that was over 150 years ago!

So no - knowing enough math to misapply equations to completely incorrect models does not magically make it 'logical'.

Second - no, you said "So really the debate is one of which side has the better cumulative argument, because no absolutely conclusive, all-encompassing study has been done to date.", while falsely equating the reams and reams of data on the side of the peer reviewed jouranls as of equal weight as an unsubstantiated list of signatures on a website.

Third - no, Government funding of studies as a solution for bias in one direction or another is *not* a 'valid personal motive', unless you intend to make the accusation, in full, that the people receiving the funds for the studies are not in fact performing the experiments they document as the results of having received those funds. Since this would be defrauding the U.S. Government, a federal crime, for which one be tried and do jail time, unless you have evidence of such fraud, when you blithely submit that as a probable reason you are slandering the ethics of the scientists paid to do those studies.

Do you have such evidence? If so, please, lets hear it. Otherwise quit trying to posit that there is some predetermined bias in the journals from something other than the results of the experiments documented in those journals. It's a red herring, and it's bloody insulting to boot. So put up or shut up.

Fourth: Um, if you had a link that disproved the very thesis you brought into the conversation, why did you bring it up?

Fifth: No - that Science is 'falsifiable' doesn't prove your point. Falsifiable means that one can design an experiment whose results, being incongruent with the predictions of a theory, would show that theory to be false. Such experiments have been conducted in regard to the theory of Man Made Climate Change, but in fact their results agree with the predictions of the theory. Consistently. Over and Over. Time after Time. In differing geographic areas.

In science this is what is called 'proving' a theory, inasmuch as a science theory can be proven.

Intellligent Design on the other hand is not falsifiable - because it makes no verifiable objective predictions, there is no experiment, however clever, that can falsify it. And that is amazingly common in the arguments you keep bringing up - you keep bringing up these unfalsifiable arguments and go "Why don't you  just poke a hole in my argument" - but your arguments fail basic tests. You can't 'poke a hole' in them because it's not substantial enough for the term 'hole' to be applicable.

Good lord, I graduated from a hick farming community, and they made sure we knew enough about logic to understand this - did they never make you take a logic course in high school?

Jonnan

how about also building a gigantic athmosphere-sucking device so that while our planet is exploded, fried, shattered, and blasted apart it is also choked ?

Maybe you could also kidnap Santa and chop him to bits on TV, so that all the children in the world start crying so hard that their parents will throw themselves from windows.

And then, le plat de résistance, you call Chuck Norris, and tell him he's a miserable whimp so that he gets super pissed and rampages across america.

muhaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah *i am so evil* hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

is that good enough for you memorable doomsday ^^ ?

I like that! Its getting added to the list. I also want to find a way to artificially induce "The Big Crunch" I'm thinking that to do that, I should put an object of unbelievly large density at the center of the planet, and turn it into a Super-Omega-Uber Black Hole and have the universe devour itself. End not just the planet but the entire universe. Now that would be fun.

I will, thank you.

Ok, I'll spell your name out with nuclear explosions. Does that work for you?

I'm sure that's it - {G}.

Jonnan

Maaaan... I thought this thread was about the Great lie of the Dread lords not occupying planets in the Apocalypse mission of the DL campaign.

Hey Kroge12, your *ahem* special skills (read: world destroying abilities) are requested on this post: https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/300386. Page 14 reply number 340.

Samurye.

Kyogre even though the nanobots are cliche they still work but i also requested the nuke missiles also be used on every building but witchfires please and thank you

(pictures of the final result will be greatly appreciated)