Quoting Jonnan001, reply 18Yes, I know I should know better by now. And true, frontotemporal dementia explains much about IQ of Spam. Dementia in any case.
As Luckmann would say:
Bam! Strike One!
Or should I say strike three? Once again you're assuming that I am the stupid one. You are completely missing my point. When I said that I wanted evidence, I was referring to the larger issue of global warming. You did post a link refuting my example, but what good is that? You have provided no countering argument to what we were actually talking about, which is whether or not global warming is man-made.
Seriously, get out of your mental rut. For the second time you are completely stuck on a moot point and have lost focus of the debate as a whole. The examples do not matter. You don't like my flat-earth example? Fine then, what about how scientists once thought that matter was just one continuous blob?
These are examples. With every post you prove that you've missed the point, especially with that last one, that was great (the comic was funny though, I am exactly like that). Sole Soul and I both tried to point you in the right direction - the point I brought up in reply #95 on page 4, which I am still waiting for a response to. This discussion is about global warming. There is a reason I didn't want to get into these other debates - because they don't matter! Please remember that, and please re-read the last paragraph of reply #95.
The problem is that your argument is based in the false premises that someone stating that they find the scientific consensus on a subject to be reasonable needs to somehow provide you some additional proof. Sorry, no - I do not accept that premise. It is the scientific consensus because study after study has verified and upheld the theory, and it is a mainstay of scientific philosophy that at that point the dissenter is required to provide his evidence so his peers can review it.
So, you keep providing some out of context evidence, I knock it down, then you claim, time after time, that the debunking of the evidence you provided was really completely irrelevant, and I need to prove the theory.
No - you see, I actually don't. You are dissenting from the scientific consensus on the subject, and thus you carry the burden to provide evidence to support your viewpoint. It's fairly obvious you can't do so and you want to turn it around on me - sorry, but no, I'm not going to let you get away with that. Some belief you vaguely have that the scientific consensus might be this or could be that, is insufficient - the burden of proof is yours, so put up or shut up.
I've made it fairly clear from the get go that I am proceeding from this basic scientific principle. I have asked, multiple times, if you have any actual evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong, and you have failed to provide any.
If you don't want to accept the scientific consensus - well, I'm not actually interested in convincing you, as you state, I'm fairly well convinced you are incapable of logical thinking, at least on these politicized issues. I am interested in whether you're willing to openly admit to the fact that you have no evidence to actually back up your opinion.
Your opinion is based in ignorance, not science.