Tippaporn

Come on, placerholder. Why do you ask me a question that you know I'm not allowed to answer? “That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

You forgot to mention that any wage increases have been completely stripped and outpaced by inflation. Small data point but . . . conveniently left out as truth so often doesn't fit into manufactured reality.

“That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Don't be surprised if that changes rather soon.

". . . real concrete progress . . . " LOL. Have you been to the grocery store lately? Or the gas pump? Looked at a new apartment? How's your electric and gas bills? Going well for ya? What the hell are you talking about? That's why people are moving to Trump. If they're not with him already. Real concrete progress? On what planet?

If I were y'all I'd worry about not having Trump in office. Unless you've enjoyed the last 2-1/2 of epic destruction. Trump's the only Republican candidate who can halt and reverse that destruction. He's the only man, period, who can do the job that America desperately needs in order to survive. Why should he debate a bunch of political hacks, grifters and selfishly ambitious wannabes? None of them can talk about their policies in detail. Only in the form of glowing platitudes. If you'll allow me, placeholder, I'll borrow your trademark response here: They ain't got nothin'. “That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus This echo chamber here is the same as the other echo chamber I just recently exited. It's fun, but only for a very short while.

You can avoid reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of avoiding reality. - Ayn Rand As our dear Thai hosts are fond of saying, up to you, Tug.

The truth I speak informs many. They're just smart enough to not enter into this viper's den. Although there are others who speak the truth here now and again. They don't stay long as they get their word in and exit shortly. I've stayed much too long this go-around so I'll leave y'all to your carry on in your closed system. Until the next climate change thread . . .

There's reality and there's fantasy. Your fantasy is my reality and my reality is your fantasy. We can't both be right. But I know which is which.

Not according to the polls which everyone here loves so much (as long as they're favourable). Not sure if you've noticed but his indictments are strengthening him. Why? Because so many see the indictments as political persecution and election interference. The bridge has not been burned. People are still crossing over. To Trump. That includes independents, blacks and Hispanics. You can deny that if you wish. Even the MSM has admitted the fact. To their chagrin, I might add. Christie is joke. I don't know how else to put it. Emerson College has him at 9%. Do you understand how weak that is? Why? Because he's a joke, a RINO, a globalist, and a political parasite. What more reasons does one need?

If Trump was so unpopular with rational Americans then explain his huge lead over Biden in the polls? And are you implying that Americans who support Trump are only irrational? That would not be very rational for you to suggest that, would it? It certainly wouldn't be true. But hey, who cares about truth, right? This is politics!!

Is the pot calling the kettle black? Me thinks so. I find it odd that you make it a point to distance yourself from two of the key individuals who fomented this movement who believe exactly as you do. It's odd and that is all. And no, to distance one's self from someone does not necessitate being a follower first. You're employing a fallacy of logic here. For A to be true does not necessitate that condition B must exist. You can distance yourself from someone without being a follower. Why should I implicitly trust the IPCC? Is the IPCC infallible? Is the IPCC beyond questioning? You certainly question climatologists and institutions who are counter to your belief. Is questioning a one way street? Are you using the argumentative fallacy of argumentum ab auctoritate as you subtly suggest that the climatologists, specifically those at the IPCC, who also coincidentally happen to agree with your beliefs, and the IPCC itself as an authoritative organization, are "the science?" Even science itself, as an authority, is not incapable of being wrong. If you need examples feel free to ask. An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong. Now there may be a lot of others who aren't aware of the fallacies of argument and logic which you consistently use but those fallacious arguments don't work on me. I understand quite well their flawed and deceptive nature. "Several times you've claimed that all the predictions of climatologists are wrong." Here you are outright sticking words in my mouth, hoping readers don't notice, then deceptively making it a statement of fact, when it is indeed false. Where is the "all?" Neither did I make any claim that any of the predictions made which you are putting forth are false. Again, I find that your entire rationale within your arguments here are deceptive in nature for they're attempting to purposely paint a false picture. That is not a statement of refutation. "And, if so, where is your evidence to back up those claims? "Basically, when confronted with the science you resort to deflections instead. "And that's because you've got nothing." I've already pointed out to you the futility in posting any information which opposes your belief. You have not addressed my quite valid reasoning below and merrily continue to chastise me for not supplying you with "my" evidence. You then furthermore employ more forms of fallacious logic to draw your own erroneous conclusions, such that I merely deflect and/or your trademark punchline, "And that's because you've got nothing." The truth is, placeholder, that you cannot be searching for the truth if your entire effort is to merely "debunk" any and all information which does not fit into your belief system regarding climate change. Anyone intent on knowing the real truth does not act in this manner. They investigate all information as to it's validity, or not, with an open mind. In my humble opinion you have already concluded what the truth is, nothing can and will change that (except yourself), and due to the fact that you are convinced of your truth then you will deny any all other information which is contradictory. Whether any other information is true or not matters not to you. For your mission objective seems to be singular, one thing and one thing only . . . nothing more than continually validating your truth. That's it. So again, do you understand why I do not post any information which contradicts yours? Because it's futile. Hell will freeze over before you would be wiling to accept any of it regardless of it's merits. If merits be damned then so must you damn yourself to an echo chamber in which the knowledge contained within that echo chamber is vastly limited and incomplete.

How so? Trump is the strongest candidate against Biden.

Why should Trump debate the Keebler Elves? His lead in the polls is greater than all the wannabes combined. Robot Ron I believe has dropped to 3rd place amongst the rest of the midgets after his latest political blunder that further exposed him as not MAGA. And Rupert Murdoch is beside himself wondering who else he can get to run that has a snowball's chance in hell of taking Trump on. News flash . . . there ain't anyone else.

I've got both halves which are needed to disagree.

You must not have read my last reply to you. My assumption based on the fact that you never responded. Typical.

I need no allies but I do like to make friends. Regardless of what prior exchanges the two of you have had, which I've not read, his post which I replied to is quite a perceptive piece. Oh, I know you wouldn't agree. After all, I think you understand who he was referencing indirectly.

Au contraire!! They read (and believe) everything the MSM publishes! And the MSM is the one and only source of all truth. <sarc> obviously.

You're rather a newbie here, 0james0, so welcome to AN. Let me be the first to commend you on your extremely perceptive post. Spot on. You nailed it, mate.

This is pointless, Brian. What has Crichton to do with the subject of whether or not consensus has any validity? Nothing. You're totally off the wall. But you have exposed yourself.

No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering, excusing yourself via deflection by raising and moving to an unrelated issue; that of Crichton's qualifications in weighing in on climate change. Whether he is correct or incorrect in any of his views has zero bearing on the issue of whether or not consensus equates to fact, truth or proof of a theory. In fact, I had raised the issue directly previous to Red Phoenix's post, which I'm sure he posted purely in support of what I had said. And the issue of consensus is one of the central points to the article which this topic is about. Not only is consensus central to the article, ii is central to the entire debate over climate change. The use of consensus by the climate change movement is not only disingenuous and uses deceptive logic, it is flat out false. Article after article after article about climate change makes mention of consensus to mislead people into believing that it equates to climate change being real. "Scientists agree" and all of the variations in phrasing is meant purely to deceive for they are empty, irrelevant statements. In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy. It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki: Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct. BTW, you can throw in argumentum ad verecundiam as another logical fallacy which is, how shall I say it, liberally used in climate change articles and debates. I will also mention that until climate change is definitively and incontrovertibly proven fact it is to that point mere belief. Granted, that belief may have evidence to support the conclusion upon which the belief is based. But regardless of the quantity of evidence nonetheless it is still only a belief. For there always exists countering evidence. So I'll ask you once more, Bkk Brian, do you agree that consensus does not equate to fact nor truth nor proof? And if not then state your case. And if you still refuse to answer then, as I've said, we can all assume the obvious. Understand that I am in no way attempting to put you on the spot nor am I presenting this with any singular malicious intent to expose you but by failing to answer you must also understand that you will automatically expose yourself. Now I will say that any climate change article that uses argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam to sway the public's opinion is an article that is not to be trusted. For if it knowingly relies on fallacious logic, with full awareness that it is false, then what other information may the article be conveying which might be false yet slipped in as the odds are gamed such that the uninformed public may not be perceptive enough to recognise the falsity of the information? And when people do not have access to the full information it is very easy to dupe them. Imagine now that the climate change movement would forever be denied the use of this deceptive argumentative tool. They would then have to rely purely on their evidence and studies but they would no longer be able to make the claim that their evidence and studies are true and correct because "scientists agree." Other information and theories, though they may not be in the majority, would then have equal standing. After that the truth is determined strictly on the basis of merit.

But I did read both of them. The word "consensus" appears in only one article and once only: In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties. Regardless of the fact that you point to those articles with the implication that your answer to consensus is contained within them, though it obviously is not, you should still be able to answer whether or not you believe that consensus equals fact, truth and proof. Why don't you then? You may very well not ignore posts but in acknowledging them yet at the same time not addressing their content then you may as well be ignoring them. The result is the same, is it not? No answer. Sad to say bu so far I think we are left no option but to conclude the obvious.

I don't mean to step on Red Phoenix's toes by butting in here but I couldn't help but notice that you made zero mention of Crichton's absolutely spot on critique of the fictitious, deceptive, and fallacious logic of "consensus science." Do you agree with Crichton? I must warn you in advance that if you do agree and in the future you reference the "overwhelming consensus of scientists agree . . ." or some such similar phrasing then you can be sure that I'll dig this post up again. And if you don't agree then what would be your rationale and logic for disagreeing? And if you decide not to reply either way and ignore this post, well, we'll just have to conclude the obvious.

Climategate: Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[18] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[89] Sorry, I've read the emails and more. There exist no amount of committees that can change what was in those emails. The "eight committees . . . " is the same deceptive ploy as "90% of scientists . . . " in that it caters to consensus to imply whatever their findings to be legitimate. After all I've written about the fallacious and deceptive use of consensus and you think you're going to pull this off on me? Come on, Brian. I should demand an apology from you for treating me as though I'm stupid. Another point about investigative committees. I know of at least three very high profile investigative committee findings, not related to climate change so I won't name them, which were wholesale BS. Again, it's an issue of trust. Just as you unquestioningly trust your scientists and climate change orgs implicitly, and on pure faith since you're not privy to the raw, unfiltered information, it appears you unquestioningly trust authority in general. Anyone who accepts information from whatever source unquestioningly is more than a bit foolish. And if burned by their naïveté then som nam na. But again, it's your God given right to make your own choices. Just don't expect others to follow blindly in your footsteps. I am Bkk Brian, I find your remark that I'm not honest as being inflammatory and disrespectful and expect an apology. I have posted numerous links to different sections of the IPPC reports on this forum so yes I have read its more relevant findings but certainly not all 8,000 pages. This along with numerous other credible links. My bad on referencing you to yourself. Now I did not state that you were a dishonest fellow. My phrasing was "if you were honest you'd admit . . ." which was giving you an option to be honest or not about having personal access to the raw data used in the conclusions drawn from the study you cited. So be careful not to twist anything in order to read into something that which is not there. So no apology will be forthcoming as there is no infraction. But, since the subject of honesty has been raised by you then I ask, what do you make of this? Now if my 'rithmetic is correct I count 4 sentences which you copy and pasted from your unattributed quote, which was from this Wiki page: Climatic Research Unit email controversy Doesn't that beat all, now? A classic example of sticking one's foot in one's mouth. And finally, as I had mentioned in my previous post, in which I linked a notification specifically to you, I'll requote myself on my stance regarding the endless loop of data, studies, graphs, etc. which is offered by the climate change believers here. You obviously didn't read it or you would have saved yourself the time and effort to post more data, studies, graphs, etc. which I simply ignore after so many circular trips to nowhere on this bizarre merry-go-round.

You're ignoring that all important ingredient - trust. You seem to think that after the Climategate revelations we all just merrily hand them our unfettered trust again, as if Climategate never happened. You have obviously done so, and that is your God given right. But don't think you can simply dismiss the loss of trust that others have with a wave of your hand. Do you understand that point? As I stated to Bkk Brian, if he were honest he'd admit that he has not personally accessed or assessed any of the data from this report himself. Neither have you. So what's the point? The point is that you are 100% reliant on pure belief that what these people are telling you is indeed true. That belief requires faith. Are those two, belief and faith, not identical components to what religion requires? Now if you were truly interested in the truth, and the truth only - no matter where it lies (as one honest poster admitted that he gives two cents either way as long as it's the truth), then you would not at all be only trying to validate what you believe to be true. Instead, you would purposely look at every piece of information that counters your belief to see what lies there. And then, only after all of the evidence is assembled, evaluate, with pure objectivity, what the truth is and what it is not. You see, that's what I've done. And I found that there is so much more to this story. And there's much that stinks to high heaven. But for the life of me I can't force anyone else see what I've seen. Not as long as they willingly close their eyes and cover their ears.

After Climategate I wouldn't trust any of the data from these people. Unless they all suddenly found religion and become honest. But I highly doubt it. If you were honest you'd admit that you have not personally accessed or assessed any of the data from this report yourself. In which case you're operating on blind faith and trust that these people are not duping you. That is your right. And mine is not to trust them as far as I can throw them. Cui bono?