The Sixth Extinction

Northern Light said:

It's not without foundation. I've already fully expounded when and how you are were , in precise terms. Claiming that I never did that is in of itself a lie, either that or just totally delusional.

A person without character can't question somebody else's character and be taken seriously.

It would be far more honest if you just admitted that you have an inflexible opinion that will never change. Instead, you masquerade as a scientific researcher while suffering from selection bias and lack of intellectual objectivity. You should be ashamed of yourself. You insult anyone who has put in years of dedicated effort gaining professional credentials and being part of field research communities. You have no right.

Click to expand...

1. You have launched unsupported claims, that's all.
2. I have never masqueraded as a researcher of any kind, scientific or otherwise. I'm a retiree, and a historian by education.
3. I don't insult anyone. I question work I find unpersuasive.
4. I have every right to do this. You, on the other hand, have no right to prescribe limits for me or anyone else.

Jack Hays said:

1. You have launched unsupported claims, that's all.
2. I have never masqueraded as a researcher of any kind, scientific or otherwise. I'm a retiree, and a historian by education.
3. I don't insult anyone. I question work I find unpersuasive.
4. I have every right to do this. You, on the other hand, have no right to prescribe limits for me or anyone else.

Click to expand...

1. My claims are fully supported and explained. Own the fact that you disagree, but don't claim they're unsupported. That's lying.
2. You're masquerading as someone versed in science yet you can't tolerate the holes in your understanding being pointed out.
3. You call critiques insults. Not my problem. You lie repeatedly and when it's pointed out you accuse the opposition of low moral character. The irony meter is broken.
4. No one's talking about rights. You can be wrong all you want, just like I am free to point out that you are posting in a deceitful way.

Northern Light said:

1. My claims are fully supported and explained. Own the fact that you disagree, but don't claim they're unsupported. That's lying.
2. You're masquerading as someone versed in science yet you can't tolerate the holes in your understanding being pointed out.
3. You call critiques insults. Not my problem. You lie repeatedly and when it's pointed out you accuse the opposition of low moral character. The irony meter is broken.
4. No one's talking about rights. You can be wrong all you want, just like I am free to point out that you are posting in a deceitful way.

Click to expand...

Fully supported is saying to much. Much of what you bring is claims that the science is settled, which is BS.
I am versed in science, though my degree is math.
When he says you are insulting, I would say ad hominem attacks, potato, potahto. If calling someone a denier is not about ad hom, what is?
When you call him a denier, you are disputing his right to post evidence in support of his claim. It's a cheap way of avoiding a real discussion based on facts.

Jay59 said:

Fully supported is saying to much. Much of what you bring is claims that the science is settled, which is BS.

Click to expand...

Science is never 100% settled. It evolves based on the availability of evidence. When evidence mounts, the viewpoint changes.

Jay59 said:

I am versed in science, though my degree is math.
When he says you are insulting, I would say ad hominem attacks, potato, potahto. If calling someone a denier is not about ad hom, what is?
When you call him a denier, you are disputing his right to post evidence in support of his claim. It's a cheap way of avoiding a real discussion based on facts.

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that the dominant paradigm can't be challenged, but if you're going to do so, you need to use good evidence. He didn't do that. Did you read this thread? Because it doesn't seem like you did.

I posted peer reviewed items along with a meta analysis of 15,000 studies. He claims this is "following the herd". Okay... so if he thinks all of that is BS, then what evidence does he have that is good enough to counter it? The answer is nothing. Nothing he has posted has disqualified my evidence.

I'm an expert in the field of biology and conservation. I have worked in that world. I still take up contracts in that world. I've worked with governments, NGOs, and non-profits. I'm also networked to the major research bodies of the world, as well as people in the peer review community.

You can't just dismiss peer reviewed research, field observations, impact assessments, and professional testimony because you "have doubts". Doubts are not proof. You also can't cherry pick data and splice it so that it fits your desired semantic definition of things.

It's pure cognitive dissonance to say that facts are facts and then misrepresent them for personal convenience. That's not science, it's something else. It's also completely dishonest to accuse me of being faith based and then go on to assert that doubts are proof.

He can post whatever he wants. Freedom of speech and all that, which I support... but he should not be trotting out research with such a partial attitude while trying to appear scientific. It's dishonest, and I will call him on it.

Northern Light said:

Science is never 100% settled. It evolves based on the availability of evidence. When evidence mounts, the viewpoint changes.

Nobody is saying that the dominant paradigm can't be challenged, but if you're going to do so, you need to use good evidence. He didn't do that. Did you read this thread? Because it doesn't seem like you did.

I posted peer reviewed items along with a meta analysis of 15,000 studies. He claims this is "following the herd". Okay... so if he thinks all of that is BS, then what evidence does he have that is good enough to counter it? The answer is nothing. Nothing he has posted has disqualified my evidence.

I'm an expert in the field of biology and conservation. I have worked in that world. I still take up contracts in that world. I've worked with governments, NGOs, and non-profits. I'm also networked to the major research bodies of the world, as well as people in the peer review community.

You can't just dismiss peer reviewed research, field observations, impact assessments, and professional testimony because you "have doubts". Doubts are not proof. You also can't cherry pick data and splice it so that it fits your desired semantic definition of things.

It's pure cognitive dissonance to say that facts are facts and then misrepresent them for personal convenience. That's not science, it's something else. It's also completely dishonest to accuse me of being faith based and then go on to assert that doubts are proof.

He can post whatever he wants. Freedom of speech and all that, which I support... but he should not be trotting out research with such a partial attitude while trying to appear scientific. It's dishonest, and I will call him on it.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what they are saying. People that challenge the paradigm are ridiculed and belittled, their ideas discarded unheard. It is the antithesis of science, all in the name of science.

We agree that there is cognitive dissonance and that facts are misrepresented for personal convenience. We disagree on who is doing it.

Jay59 said:

That is exactly what they are saying. People that challenge the paradigm are ridiculed and belittled, their ideas discarded unheard. It is the antithesis of science, all in the name of science.

We agree that there is cognitive dissonance and that facts are misrepresented for personal convenience. We disagree on who is doing it.

Click to expand...

He’s ridiculed and belittled for good reason.

If you’ve been around a while, you’ll see the sheer disingenuousness of what he posts clearly.

There are people who dissent from a reasoned, honest position. He’s not one of them.

Threegoofs said:

He’s ridiculed and belittled for good reason.
If you’ve been around a while, you’ll see the sheer disingenuousness of what he posts clearly.
There are people who dissent from a reasoned, honest position. He’s not one of them.

Click to expand...

There is never good reason. Others may be watching.
I see plenty of disingenuousness on the other side as well
If he's not one, that makes at least two.

Jay59 said:

There is never good reason. Others may be watching.
I see plenty of disingenuousness on the other side as well
If he's not one, that makes at least two.

Click to expand...

No- the sheer amount of crap he posts daily needs to be called out as crap.

It’s like homeopathy- once the same guy presents the same stuff over and over - you need to call him out as a quack, not someone who is mildly confused about a specific study.

Threegoofs said:

No- the sheer amount of crap he posts daily needs to be called out as crap.

It’s like homeopathy- once the same guy presents the same stuff over and over - you need to call him out as a quack, not someone who is mildly confused about a specific study.

Click to expand...

It's a strange obsession. "Let's deny things that are obvious."

calamity said:

It's a strange obsession. "Let's deny things that are obvious."

Click to expand...

I am familiar with the principle, but the application here is not so clear. This subject spans the range from real science to tinfoil.

Some climate change advocates are on the tinfoil extreme. Jack is not.

Jay59 said:

I am familiar with the principle, but the application here is not so clear. This subject spans the range from real science to tinfoil.

Some climate change advocates are on the tinfoil extreme. Jack is not.

Click to expand...

lol...human induced extinctions are documented facts. Entire continents have been wiped clear of large game, countless species of birds, fish amphibians and insects. What on earth is the argument supporting the denial of it?

calamity said:

lol...human induced extinctions are documented facts. Entire continents have been wiped clear of large game, countless species of birds, fish amphibians and insects. What on earth is the argument supporting the denial of it?

Click to expand...

So the dodo was killed by climate change? Thats news to me...

calamity said:

lol...human induced extinctions are documented facts. Entire continents have been wiped clear of large game, countless species of birds, fish amphibians and insects. What on earth is the argument supporting the denial of it?

Click to expand...

There you go, off into tinfoil land.

You are worse than he is.

PoS said:

So the dodo was killed by climate change? Thats news to me...

Click to expand...

Not by climate change.
By human beings.

Jay59 said:

I am familiar with the principle, but the application here is not so clear. This subject spans the range from real science to tinfoil.

Some climate change advocates are on the tinfoil extreme. Jack is not.

Click to expand...

Hmm. You think Jack is thoughtful and selective about the denier arguments he disseminates?

Now I wonder about your preferred style of metallic headgear.

PoS said:

So the dodo was killed by climate change? Thats news to me...

Click to expand...

Please point out where I wrote "climate change" in that post. :roll:

Northern Light said:

1. My claims are fully supported and explained. Own the fact that you disagree, but don't claim they're unsupported. That's lying.
2. You're masquerading as someone versed in science yet you can't tolerate the holes in your understanding being pointed out.
3. You call critiques insults. Not my problem. You lie repeatedly and when it's pointed out you accuse the opposition of low moral character. The irony meter is broken.
4. No one's talking about rights. You can be wrong all you want, just like I am free to point out that you are posting in a deceitful way.

Click to expand...

The difference between us is that I'm happy to disagree without attacking your character. You apparently can't disagree without using words like "lying," "masquerading," "lie," and "deceitful." Tsk tsk.

Jack Hays said:

The difference between us is that I'm happy to disagree without attacking your character. You apparently can't disagree without using words like "lying," "masquerading," "lie," and "deceitful." Tsk tsk.

Click to expand...

Maybe that’s because we’ve seen your character in it’s full glory.

Threegoofs said:

Maybe that’s because we’ve seen your character in it’s full glory.

Click to expand...

I'm content with the comparison.

Jack Hays said:

The difference between us is that I'm happy to disagree without attacking your character. You apparently can't disagree without using words like "lying," "masquerading," "lie," and "deceitful." Tsk tsk.

Click to expand...

You attacked my character plenty in this thread. Either your memory is short or you're just lying again.

Pointing out that the quality of your work is mediocre and deceitful is simply calling a spade a spade.

Northern Light said:

You attacked my character plenty in this thread. Either your memory is short or you're just lying again.

Pointing out that the quality of your work is mediocre and deceitful is simply calling a spade a spade.

Click to expand...

If you believe I attacked your character please cite the post.

Jay59 said:

That is exactly what they are saying. People that challenge the paradigm are ridiculed and belittled, their ideas discarded unheard. It is the antithesis of science, all in the name of science.

We agree that there is cognitive dissonance and that facts are misrepresented for personal convenience. We disagree on who is doing it.

Click to expand...

You're saying a whole lot of nothing here.

If you want to challenge the paradigm, then challenge it. Nobody is stopping you. Just be prepared to not be taken seriously if your evidence is mediocre, as we have seen in this thread from Jack.

Again, doubt is not proof.

Jack Hays said:

If you believe I attacked your character please cite the post.

Click to expand...

No thanks. Your posts speak for themselves to anyone who reads the thread, which I am satisfied with. I won't be drawn into another cyclical vortex of non-sense with you, where you move the goal posts or split hairs in order to desperately prove a failed point. Your denial of reality is so easily triggered that it makes it impossible to have a substantive conversation with you. As soon as you see something you doubt or disagree with, the blinders go on.

Again, no thank you.

I mostly came here to test you and see what you're really about. Now I know, and I'm appalled. No point in going further.

Northern Light said:

No thanks. Your posts speak for themselves to anyone who reads the thread, which I am satisfied with. I won't be drawn into another cyclical vortex of non-sense with you, where you move the goal posts or split hairs in order to desperately prove a failed point. Your denial of reality is so easily triggered that it makes it impossible to have a substantive conversation with you. As soon as you see something you doubt or disagree with, the blinders go on.

Again, no thank you.

Click to expand...

That's very different from claiming I attacked your character, which is a falsehood from which I'm not surprised to see you backing away.

Jack Hays said:

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/25/another-dodgy-earth-day-ploy-hyping-flawed-and-failed-species-extinction-propaganda/"]

[/URL]Environment[/FONT]
[h=1]Another dodgy Earth Day ploy hyping flawed and failed “species extinction” propaganda[/h][FONT="]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin The latest 2019 Earth Day event, the 50th since the first such propaganda event started in 1970, has the proclaimed theme of “Protect Our Species” and offers the usual and often repeated litany of species mass extinction alarmist exaggeration including: “human beings have irrevocably upset the balance of nature and,…
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Extinction is also completely natural and no biological form is immune to it.

The 'value' people place on species is what's subjective. However the value that humans place on Homo sapiens does not mean we can prevent its extinction. The microbes and the cosmos all have a pretty good shot at it, as well as our own warlike actions.