BAR wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Don White wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...

Provided without comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer?
Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure
are poisoining the environment.
We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes
it's way up here and dumps on us.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html



Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset.


Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did
is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and
water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as
carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas).

I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others
on this issue.



I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more
anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the
awakening of Terry Schiavo.


We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points.

THis fits "global warming to a tee.

Identifying pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called
pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the
accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to
meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.[18]

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific
reasoning.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

* Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than
precise, and that lack specific measurements.[19]
* Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a
scientific description of the operational means in which a range of
numeric measurements can be obtained).[20]
* Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony,
i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible
additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
(see: Occam's Razor)[21]
* Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical
jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
* Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific
theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations)
under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[22]

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

* Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the
event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also:
falsifiability)[23]
* Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has
not been shown to predict[24]
* Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be
true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[25]
* Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and
anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis
generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e.
hypothesis testing).[26]
* Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that
seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to
consider data that conflict with its claims.[27]
* Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests
on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific"
arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics
demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion
regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is
essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic
incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the
claimant.[28]
* Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims,
especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and
mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain
negative findings.[29]

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

* Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called
"science by press conference").[30] Some proponents of theories that
contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to
the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds
that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict
established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions
cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By
remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents
forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[31]
* Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to
reproduce the claimed results.[32]
* Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in
response to requests for review of data or methodology.[33]

Lack of progress

* Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its
claims.[34] Terrence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that
has changed very little in the past two millennia.[35]
* Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make
mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[36] By
contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they
have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.[37]

Personalization of issues

* Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality,
suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of
beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their
(confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as
enemies.[38]
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific
community to suppress the results.[39]
* Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the
claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]