Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

Mel Beckman mel at beckman.org
Mon Feb 22 19:54:33 UTC 2021


Actually, no, I don’t have to do science to object to claims made by scientists. Even when there is a consensus. I can simply cite data, and it is the duty of the person making the claim to defend their theory.

If you’re going to defend it for them, then you need to cite countering data, not an “argument from authority”. It should be a simple matter to find data supporting the claim that weather is getting more severe, rather than just more costly, which is the usual conflation by climate warmists.


On Feb 22, 2021, at 11:38 AM, Brandon Svec <bsvec at teamonesolutions.com<mailto:bsvec at teamonesolutions.com>> wrote:

OK, I looked closer.  I see it is a self titled opinion piece so there is that.  Next, I see all the links in the article go to questionable sites (not .edu or scientific organizations, etc.)  except one cherry picked NOAA stat for a single event type for a single year.  Last, the writer is the president of a right wing anti science lobbying group called "Spark of Freedom" funded by Exxon Mobil.

Look, I and most everyone on this list are not qualified, experienced climate scientists.  However, I think when you are not an expert you should respect and believe what experts say as a group.  Picking outliers and sharing opinions of obviously unqualified and biased people is reprehensible and dishonest as far as I am concerned.

If you truly believe the scientific consensus around climate change is wrong you are going to have to do a lot more than share links.  You will have to do science and prove it.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:mel at beckman.org>> wrote:
What offended you? The term “Global Warmist”? It’s an accurate description of people who hold that climate change is causing more frequent and severe weather, due to heating of the atmosphere.

And your argument about “Forbes for something related to science” fails on the classic logical fallacy “appeal to authority”. Just because Forbes states easily verifiable public facts doesn’t make them untrustworthy. Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority by “consensus”. Science is not a consensus enterprise.


> On Feb 22, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:mel at beckman.org>> wrote:
>> Sorry Global Warmists,
> Stopped taking you seriously or reading further right there.  Well, that and linking to Forbes for something related to science.
> Best.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210222/b170e429/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list