NASA given $400 million to study global warming

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 02:39:18 AM

I guess you you can't provide any evidence. Thought so.

I don't need to prove that NASA is lying. You need to prove that they are telling the truth.

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

Don't change the subject. You claim that there is a conspiracy. I'm not.
Prove to me that there is a conspiracy. Also, you're stuck in a loop.

Tech Support! Tom needs a reboot.

Don't change the subject. You claim that there is a conspiracy. I'm not.
Prove to me that there is a conspiracy. Also, you're stuck in a loop.

Tech Support! Tom needs a reboot.

"Lying," and "Conspiring to Lie" are the same thing.

No one needs to prove that NASA is conspiring to lie. You need to prove that they are honest. You need to prove your positive. You need to prove that they are doing all the things they claim to do. No one needs to prove a negative or "prove your wrong."

Burden of proof is still on the claimant.

So where's your proof?

Quote

Don't change the subject. You claim that there is a conspiracy. I'm not.
Prove to me that there is a conspiracy. Also, you're stuck in a loop.

Tech Support! Tom needs a reboot.

"Lying," and "Conspiring to Lie" are the same thing.

No one needs to prove that NASA is conspiring to lie. You need to prove that they are not. You need to prove your positive. You need to prove that they are doing all the things they claim to do. No one needs to prove a negative or "prove your wrong."

So where's your proof?

Of course you need to prove that NASA is lying. Where did you learn to debate? If you claim that NASA is lying, then for **** sake, show me some evidence.

By your logic I can say: Tom Bishop is lying, and I really don't need to prove this. You have to prove to me that you're talking the truth.

Where's your evidence?

Of course you need to prove that NASA is lying.

Actually, I don't.

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on the skeptics who question the legitimacy of Moller's claims?

As we can see, the burden is proof is never on the skeptic. It's always on the claimant. If you claim something, the burden is on you to prove it.

Quote

Of course you need to prove that NASA is lying.

Actually, I don't.

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on the skeptics who question the legitimacy of Moller's claims?

As we can see, the burden is proof is never on the skeptic. It's always on the claimant. If you claim something, the burden is on you to prove it.

The FE are CLAIMING that there exists a conspiracy. No one has ever produced evidence for this. It's logical, without evidence to then assume that there is no conspiracy.

You're lying Tom, and the fun part is that I don't have to prove that you are. Prove to me that what you're saying is truth.

The FE are CLAIMING that there exists a conspiracy. No one has ever produced evidence for this. It's logical, without evidence to then assume that there is no conspiracy.

Nope. I told you. The burden of proof is never on the skeptics. It's always on the claimant.

If you came here claiming that the Moller company invented a sky car, time machine, or whatever, the burden would be on you to prove it. The burden is absolutely not on everyone else to prove that Moller is conspiring to lie.

Questioning Moller's claims isn't claiming anything. It's a question.

The burden of proof in all debates is on the claimant, whether that debate be on science or religion.

Quote

Of course you need to prove that NASA is lying.

Actually, I don't.

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on the skeptics who question the legitimacy of Moller's claims?

As we can see, the burden is proof is never on the skeptic. It's always on the claimant. If you claim something, the burden is on you to prove it.

In a debate the burden of proof is on both parties you fecking moron. One party makes a statement and provides evidence of some sort or another to back up that claim. Then the other side makes a rebuttal and provides evidence to back it up. This continues back and forth until the debate comes to a close. This process allows both sides, and any audience, to consider the merits of both positions and form their conclusions accordingly. If one side continually declares that there is no need for them to provide any sort of corroboration for anything they say then no theories are tested, no new evidence ever sought, no statements are ever discarded as invalid since they have not been scrutinised. In short, progress ceases.

The example of the flying car you offer (and I notice have offered several times when someone has boxed you into the corner of actually having to back up some of the fantastic statements you make) as evidence that there is never any need for Tom Bishop to support his statements is completely different to a debate. The manufacturers of the flying car are seeking investment for their product. The onus on them is to provide enough evidence for a would be investor to accept their claims. If somebody is happy to sign over their cash based on this single initial video, they have met their obligation. If an investor requires more evidence before giving money, the manufacturer must accede to his demand or go without his money. In no way shape or form can this be compared to the peer review process (which is essentially what scientific debate is) that allows us (well most of us) to progress as a race.

In a debate the burden of proof is on both parties you fecking moron.

Really, so if I'm debating with someone who believes in ghosts I have to prove that ghosts *don't* exist? 

Quote

In a debate the burden of proof is on both parties you fecking moron.

Really, so if I'm debating with someone who believes in ghosts I have to prove that ghosts *don't* exist? 

Yes, both have to support their claims. If those who believes that ghosts exists, they have to provide evidence for
the existence of ghosts. If they do, you'll have to prove that they don't. If they can't provide any evidence for the existence of ghosts,
you don't have to provide evidence that they don't exist.

Also, ghosts are really a bad example Tom.

Yes, both have to support their claims. If those who believes that ghosts exists, they have to provide evidence for
the existence of ghosts. If they do, you'll have to prove that they don't. If they can't provide any evidence for the existence of ghosts,
you don't have to provide evidence that they don't exist.

Also, ghosts are really a bad example Tom.

So if they tell me a ghost story I have to prove them wrong? 

Quote

Yes, both have to support their claims. If those who believes that ghosts exists, they have to provide evidence for
the existence of ghosts. If they do, you'll have to prove that they don't. If they can't provide any evidence for the existence of ghosts,
you don't have to provide evidence that they don't exist.

Also, ghosts are really a bad example Tom.

So if they tell me a ghost story I have to prove them wrong? 

That's another thing. Read my post again. IF THEY PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST.

IF THEY PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST.

No, you have to provide evidence that their evidence is wrong.

Quote from: C-Ray on January 22, 2009, 01:57:56 PM

Quote from: WastedTime on January 22, 2009, 08:16:54 AM

The global warming phenomenon is real, but the Carbon dioxide cause for it, invented by the global "climatologist" community, is a joke. Also, the targets for sales of the compact fluorescent bulbs have been reached, and the latest research is finding them to be more dangerous due to UV emissions.
So, NASA needs the money to come up with a different plausible cause for the global warning, which will, no doubt, result in more of our money being flushed down the drain by adopting some other global warming-reducing lifestyle changes. 

Where did you get that information?

Mostly, CNN, BBC, and CBC with some help of printed press.

All light bulbs put out some amount of UV light.  Incandescent light bulbs however put out more UV then the average fluorescent bulb does.  So saying that fluorescent bulbs are wrong because of that, is just wrong period.

No, you have to provide evidence that their evidence is wrong.

Exactly, and FEers have still yet to do that.

The conspiracy is nothing but a work of fiction, whereas NASA has pictures, videos, and satellite signals to back up their claims.

It's no wonder that NASA is a lot more believable than you guys.

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

So only NASA claims the earth is round?

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

So only NASA claims the earth is round?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Please do not appeal to the majority to prove the factualness of your statements. In fact, throughout history 100% of people are wrong on nearly every issue.

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

Why do you think they have not been sending objects to space?

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

Why do you think they have not been sending objects to space?

It is impossible on a flat earth. Also, some of their work is very shoddy.

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 10:27:12 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

Why do you think they have not been sending objects to space?

It is impossible on a flat earth. Also, some of their work is very shoddy.

I've seen lots of NASA live broadcasts and they look pretty legit to me. And I'm a pretty skeptic individual.
Ah, so you've already have made up your mind that the earth is flat. You're not even considering that it may be round. That's why the
conspiracy must exist, even though there's no evidence for it. The conspiracy must exist, otherwise the FE fails completely.

Do you agree on this?
No conspiracy, no FE?

Do you agree on this?
No conspiracy, no FE?

Obviously, but the point is moot considering it is unprovable either way.

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 10:37:52 AM

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 10:27:12 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

Why do you think they have not been sending objects to space?

It is impossible on a flat earth. Also, some of their work is very shoddy.

I've seen lots of NASA live broadcasts and they look pretty legit to me. And I'm a pretty skeptic individual.
Ah, so you've already have made up your mind that the earth is flat. You're not even considering that it may be round. That's why the
conspiracy must exist, even though there's no evidence for it. The conspiracy must exist, otherwise the FE fails completely.

Do you agree on this?
No conspiracy, no FE?

Not at all. Also I find it offensive you say I base this on no evidence. My theories are all based off observations and evidence. Though the second I doubt holier than thou NASA I am making claims without evidence and believe a conspiracy must exist.

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 10:44:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 10:37:52 AM

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 10:27:12 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

Why do you think they have not been sending objects to space?

It is impossible on a flat earth. Also, some of their work is very shoddy.

I've seen lots of NASA live broadcasts and they look pretty legit to me. And I'm a pretty skeptic individual.
Ah, so you've already have made up your mind that the earth is flat. You're not even considering that it may be round. That's why the
conspiracy must exist, even though there's no evidence for it. The conspiracy must exist, otherwise the FE fails completely.

Do you agree on this?
No conspiracy, no FE?

Not at all. Also I find it offensive you say I base this on no evidence. My theories are all based off observations and evidence. Though the second I doubt holier than thou NASA I am making claims without evidence and believe a conspiracy must exist.

No offense intended.
Now we're starting to get somewhere. What kind of observations and evidence are we talking about? I really like to know.

Quote from: C-Ray on January 23, 2009, 10:19:22 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

So only NASA claims the earth is round?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Please do not appeal to the majority to prove the factualness of your statements. In fact, throughout history 100% of people are wrong on nearly every issue.

Glad to see you admit you are wrong about the earth being flat..

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: C-Ray on January 23, 2009, 10:19:22 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

So only NASA claims the earth is round?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Please do not appeal to the majority to prove the factualness of your statements. In fact, throughout history 100% of people are wrong on nearly every issue.

Glad to see you admit you are wrong about the earth being flat..

Glad to see you misunderstood me.

That's another thing. Read my post again. IF THEY PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST.

So if they tell me about a ghost encounter they had or show me a smudge on a photograph I have to prove them wrong? 

Quote from: svenanders on January 23, 2009, 08:00:26 AM

That's another thing. Read my post again. IF THEY PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST.

So if they tell me about a ghost encounter they had or show me a smudge on a photograph I have to prove them wrong? 

A so called ghost encounter could be a lot of things. I wouldn't consider it evidence, unless they could prove it multiple times. As I said earlier ghosts are a bad example.

Quote from: C-Ray on January 23, 2009, 11:39:49 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: C-Ray on January 23, 2009, 10:19:22 AM

Quote from: Raist on January 23, 2009, 09:49:25 AM

Here is the final say on "the conspiracy"

We have reason to believe the Earth is Flat.

NASA claims it is round and demands large amounts of money to "send objects to space"



That is it.

Now if the Earth really is flat, and NASA is claiming it is round, they are obviously conspiring at something. The conspiracy needs no "proof" because we base no argument upon the conspiracy. The only time it is referenced even is by ignorant RE'ers who think that is what we'll claim.

If we say a photo looks fake every round earther on here screams conspiracy. We are not responsible for your debate tactics.

So only NASA claims the earth is round?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Please do not appeal to the majority to prove the factualness of your statements. In fact, throughout history 100% of people are wrong on nearly every issue.

Glad to see you admit you are wrong about the earth being flat..

Glad to see you misunderstood me.

See bold section above.

A so called ghost encounter could be a lot of things. I wouldn't consider it evidence, unless they could prove it multiple times. As I said earlier ghosts are a bad example.

How is it a bad example? The paranormal is unobservable and unexperienced, just like NASA's missions to the moon, mars, and around the solar system.

How is it a bad example? The paranormal is unobservable and unexperienced, just like NASA's missions to the moon, mars, and around the solar system.

And just like NASA's secret base where they land stuff, their vast army of pesudollites, and the machines pumping out faked data and such. Yet you will quite happily accept that those exist with no evidence whatsoever. You only seem to accept things as possible if it supports your model, and if it doesn't then it needs 'proof' of it's existence.

An interesting little point about the Apollo missions and faked data, actually. When the missions were in progress, they produced so much data that whole new database models had to be developed to manage it all. Begs the question of how they managed to organise all the data beforehand as they created it, as a suitable method of managing it didn't exist at the time.