Climate Change Is Extremely Political And Agenda Serving, Unfortunately It Is Also True

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

If I did, would it satisfy this argument?  What exactly would satisfy a liberal scientist in the this argument?  I venture, nothing. 

Unless you do the experiment yourself, you won't believe it.

It should.

And "liberal scientist" is an ad hominem.

[other one]

At this point I just have to go........   "Whatever"

[teddyv]

3 minutes ago, other one said:

It doesn't have the particle to stick to.   The difference in moisture and clouds.  Clouds don't form unless there is an abundance of junk in the air for the moisture to stick to.  And when enough of the moisture comes along gravity takes over and it rains.

Correct. Where and when I grew up, we had times of really thick persistent fogs due to the abundance of lumber mills and other industrial activity. Now that many mills are closed or particulates more stringently monitored and removed, those thick fogs rarely occur anymore.

[Sparks]

16 minutes ago, teddyv said:

It should.

And "liberal scientist" is an ad hominem.

How is "liberal scientist" an ad hominem?  

Liberals, in my experience, only believe other liberals.  I am not a liberal and would have conducted the experiment, and I believe no amount of evidence I collected would convince you.  Liberal is not a dirty word, you know. 

Now if I had said you were ugly, that would have been an ad hominem. 

[Sparks]

12 minutes ago, other one said:

At this point I just have to go........   "Whatever"

Wise.  Or you could realize that you cannot reproduce what you claim given the right environment. 

You could look at the sky around sunset, especially an orange sunset.  Vapor trails are easily visible then, and notice that jets have a small tail of vapor that sort of erases itself a few hundred yards away, where as low altitude chem trails don't.  They linger, they get fatter, and never really disperse, but spread.   That's not the habit of vapor trails.

[Alive]

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

How is "liberal scientist" an ad hominem?  

Liberals, in my experience, only believe other liberals.  I am not a liberal and would have conducted the experiment, and I believe no amount of evidence I collected would convince you.  Liberal is not a dirty word, you know. 

Now if I had said you were ugly, that would have been an ad hominem. 

My observation has been that when a self-proclaimed conservative uses the term 'liberal or liberal scientist' that there is quite a lot of weight behind it. That weight containing a disdain, at best.

So, it seems reasonable for a 'liberal' to react in calling such 'ad hominem'

Dontcha think?

[teddyv]

8 minutes ago, Sparks said:

How is "liberal scientist" an ad hominem?  

Liberals, in my experience, only believe other liberals.  I am not a liberal and would have conducted the experiment, and I believe no amount of evidence I collected would convince you.  Liberal is not a dirty word, you know. 

Now if I had said you were ugly, that would have been an ad hominem. 

You are attacking one's position based on something irrelevant to that position. 

"directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

[Sparks]

25 minutes ago, Alive said:

My observation has been that when a self-proclaimed conservative uses the term 'liberal or liberal scientist' that there is quite a lot of weight behind it. That weight containing a disdain, at best.

So, it seems reasonable for a 'liberal' to react in calling such 'ad hominem'

Dontcha think?

Nope.  I explained myself.

But if you think 'liberal' and 'scientist' cannot be paired without insult, I would conclude that there was a lot of weight behind that statement from you, as you said.

Allegedly our friend @teddyv is a geologist, which one could conclude is a scientist.  He is also a liberal, politically.   We disagree about virtually every topic.  I asked him what would convince him, because I am sure I could not no matter what evidence I present.  Take that as you will, but I suggest since I explained myself you take what I said on the benefit of the doubt.

I am not a conservative, by the way.  I am a libertarian.  We libertarians are about 50% more freedom minded than our conservative or liberal friends, and 100% more freedom minded than socialists or dictators.

[Sparks]

20 minutes ago, teddyv said:

You are attacking one's position based on something irrelevant to that position. 

"directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

What conservative scientists or libertarian scientists do you side with? 

If you want to be honest with yourself, liberals and conservatives view the world differently, even in scientific circles.  They tend to disagree with topics like "Global Warming," vaccines, and other subjects, given the same evidence.

If you want to be insulted by the idea, go ahead.  That was not my intent. 

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

What conservative scientists or libertarian scientists do you side with? 

If you want to be honest with yourself, liberals and conservatives view the world differently, even in scientific circles.  They tend to disagree with topics like "Global Warming," vaccines, and other subjects, given the same evidence.

If you want to be insulted by the idea, go ahead.  That was not my intent. 

I side with scientists that do their work responsibly. It is possible to do this regardless of your political leaning.

I work with another geologist that would agree with many of your stances on vaccines, government, etc. We can work together because we both do our geological work professionally. We sometimes get into a discussions on political or other contentious topics outside of geology but it does not affect how we conduct our work. We have the same responsibilities and ethical duties around our work. I'm not even sure how being conservative or liberal would affect this work.

And I'm not insulted. This just started because you used a logical fallacy (no matter how you try to justify it).