01-13-2017, 01:22 AM
(01-12-2017, 07:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're hilarious. If you want to have a real discussion about the science behind Global Warming, then you should post some. We know you can't because you haven't looked at any of the actual science.
I have already told you I haven't read any studies on global warming. I have an open mind. Therefore, I don't have any preconceived notions about whether climate change is legitimate or a hoax. So I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I've only asked to read the studies you have read so I can be as informed as you.
Quote:So maybe be careful accusing someone else's opinion of being ignorant when you're the one who hasn't read anything on the subject.
You have called people (plural) ignorant of the scientific method because they haven't posted a study to "prove" something. The scientific method involves testing a hypothesis with experimentation and or observation. The scientific method does not, I repeat does not, involve posting a published research conducted by someone else on a message board. From your accusations of ignorance, I know you don't know the first damn thing about the scientific method. So I am being careful when I call you ignorant of the scientific method.
If any of us were to prove anything regarding climate change we would need to test our hypothesis. Again, you do that by experimentation and/or observation. Not by posting a link to an article.
If the actual studies you have read indicate climate change science is junk then post the actual studies so I can read them. If you don't want to explain why it is junk, fine. I didn't ask you to explain anything. If you want to explain why it is junk, fine. I don't care one way or the other.
Regarding proving a negative. Andrew Wakefield's research linking a certain type of MMR vaccine to autism was proven wrong (proving a negative) because the results weren't reproducible and thus proven false. So enough with the can't prove a negative smoke and mirrors bullshit.
Quote:If you want to make claims of huge numbers of jobs Trump shipped overseas, gives us some numbers. Something. Anything. Because it's a dubious claim. You don't understand the difference between sourcing and outsourcing, got called on it, and now you dance.
I didn't claim Trump shipped huge numbers of jobs overseas. I claimed Trump's tough talk on tariffs was posturing. First you started with a red herring (tell me the number of jobs) and now you've switched to a strawman (trying to get me to defend a claim I never made.) Now why do I believe the tariff talk is posturing? Because Trump isn't talking tough about applying a tariff to any imported Trump products.
You have already admitted Trump labeled products are made overseas and imported. There is no need for me to prove it. You already know the jobs are located overseas.
Let's review what I wrote that has your panties all in a bunch, "the tough talk on outsourcing is just posturing IMO until his own companies shift jobs back to the US."
At best, you have an esoteric argument about sourcing and outsourcing based upon my use of one word, "back." Whether the jobs were sourced or outsourced has no bearing on the basis of my claim the tough tariff talk is posturing. The jobs are overseas. The jobs employ overseas workers. The jobs do not employ US workers. The only way to employ US workers in those jobs is to move the jobs. Move them where? Move the jobs to the US or move the jobs "back" to the US. That's how silly your argument is.
I don't know the exact number of jobs, never claimed to know the exact number of jobs, doubt Trump knows. The number of jobs is a red herring. If the number is 423 or 10,819 it doesn't matter if I can or can't tell you the number because we both know the jobs are overseas and why. And the exact number doesn't change my point.
Quote:You make a claim and then say prove me wrong. That's not how this works. Show us the data your claim is based on and then we can have a debate.
That's how you think it works when it comes to you. I wrote to prove me wrong because I was mocking someone's asinine logic. I'm not surprised you don't understand that, either. If climate change science is junk show me why. You've read the actual studies so it should be simple for a science guru such as yourself to show why the science is junk.
I claimed Trump's tough tariff talk is posturing. Numbers don't affect that claim. When he slaps a tariff on an imported Trump product then it won't be posturing.
