Reply With Quote
Neither had I. Can't put pictures in blue text.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-the-well.html
I dont' think your claims are false, nor do I represent them as such. You very studiously adhere to only true statements, I will freely admit to much.
Just as studiously, you never admit to any relevant evidence on the topic of AGW that might point to its [potentially catastrophic effects--RG], nor do you bother to rightfully qualify things, as noted.
Yet again, you start slinging terms about logical fallacies, without supporting them.
Either you don't understand what they are, or you know, and are deliberately lying about what I am saying.
Given you have never demonstrated a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is, I would say the former is more likely, but the latter is quite possible, given your apparent mental state.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-08-2014 at 12:43 PM. Reason: accuracy
Neither had I. Can't put pictures in blue text.
Mises then?
The Austrian school?
The precioussss lisst....?
Find an example of my intellectual dishonesty then.
If I do it on a frequent basis, it should be easy for you.
Example, and why you think it is intellectually dishonest, along with a link.
Again, the skeptic argument isn't about the existence of AGW, it's about whether or not AGW is catastrophic.
The le of his list:
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
There is a difference between insults and saying your points are somehow invalid because you are a stinky booger-brain.
One should, as I have point out that your insanity and intellectual dishonesty should cause any reasonable person to approach your assertions with a bit more skepticism than would otherwise be the case.
"can be considered" is not the same as "can be proven".
You do understand there is a difference, yes?
Do you have any link to any evidence in support of AGW's potentially catastrophic effects on your website or blog? Why or why not?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-08-2014 at 12:42 PM. Reason: accuracy
naturally varying climatic conditions, El Nino/La Nina, etc, etc.
certainly not the draught, extreme weather, coal/oil-burning industrial revolution, AGW of 1000+ years later.
Thanks, I genuinely appreciate the correction.I dont' think your claims are false, nor do I represent them as such. You very studiously adhere to only true statements, I will freely admit to much.
Just as studiously, you never admit to any relevant evidence on the topic of AGW that might point to its potential catastrophic consequences, nor do you bother to rightfully qualify things, as noted.
Yet again, you start slinging terms about logical fallacies, without supporting them.
Either you don't understand what they are, or you know, and are deliberately lying about what I am saying.
Given you have never demonstrated a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is, I would say the former is more likely, but the latter is quite possible, given your apparent mental state.
Better?
... and there he is. You have a new buddy, Cosmored. Maybe you can get him to comment in your thread.
I am claiming you are intellectually dishonest. I say this because you do not bother with even admitting the existence of evidence that might point to the catastrophic effects of AGW, here or elsewhere, that I have ever seen, let alone the volume or weight of that evidence.
Wikipedia is credible to a degree, and does provide reasonably useful information. Feel free to cite what you think is a more credible definition of cherry picking as a logical failing if you feel that the one wikipedia provided was inadequate. Telling me to "cite reliable sources" isn't the hallmark of someone seeking truth, it is the hallmark of someone soothing a wounded ego. A real truth seeker would want to get an agreed-on definition, so that true could be reasonably determined, and would provide one.
The very act of creating the website the way you have structured it, is cherry picking.Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.
Again, you will hide behind the "but that is my stated purpose" all you want. That is just being honest about cherry picking.
Seems like a fair definition to me. Again, feel free to post what you think is better or more credible. I will work with that definition to show you are intellectually dishonest, because by any fair interpretation, your website is a dishonest one, by the simple dint of not alluding to the strength or merits of the theory you are so desperately attempting to criticise and debunk.
Wouldn't it be dishonest to include alarmists papers in a list with this le?
"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
I didn't represent my analysis as fact, merely that it was my guess.
Thanks for providing information here that you did not on the website.
Support is defined here, but not on your website.
So how is a paper to determined be "explicit to a skeptical position"? or determine who is "skeptical"?explicit to a skeptical position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology not me.
It would be. Not my point though.
I am making a point about intellectual honesty. Such a list is, on its face, intellectually dishonest, without some qualification of what the list really means. Do you understand why?
I do not believe any relevant evidence exists to support catastrophic effects of AGW.
So you are denying you were poisoning the well with your personal attacks? Oh please, spare me your bull . What is more likely is you are mentally deranged.
Are you mentally deranged?
You are not the arbiter on the definitions of logical fallacies. Ad hominem for instance can simply mean "criticizing a person's character instead of what they are saying" (Macmillian). Thus if you respond with personal attacks about a person's character in an argument it can be considered an ad hominem.
Do you have a list of skeptic papers supporting their arguments? Why or why not?
So you continue to make libelous claims about me then. I do not believe there is any valid evidence that points to any catastrophic effects of AGW let alone that it holds any weight. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to believe otherwise.
Wikipedia is a completely unreliable source that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection. Only computer illiterates believe otherwise. It is not my job to provide reliable sources for you to support your arguments.
Why do you keep making libelous claims about my website? Which paper supporting a skeptic argument did I intentionally leave off my list? Your argument is abject idiocy, it is the equivalent of claiming that a list of papers supporting evolution is "cherry picked" because it does not include ones that endorse intelligent design.
It is not my job to provide reliable sources for you to support your arguments. Repeating your libelous claims about me does not make them true.
It was in the rebuttals section but this has now been added to the Criteria for Inclusion section as well.
This requires both basic reading comprehension skills and elementary knowledge of the debate.
PopTech with The Threats
The science is settled, es!
Realizing what this meant to the cause, NBC immediately turned to the least credible source they could muster to put the lie to their report...Natural conditions, not human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, are the driving force behind California’s three-year dry spell, scientists on a federal task force concluded Monday. But the report came under fire from some experts who said it downplayed other factors that have humanity’s fingerprints on them.
The evidence suggests a naturally induced “warm patch” of water in the western Pacific helped to create a high-pressure ridge that blocked precipitation from entering California, the experts said at a news conference to release the report.
“We have been able to identify this as a mode of ocean forcing of atmospheric circulation that causes West Coast drought,” said Richard Seager, a climate model specialist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Other studies suggesting a global warming link are off the mark since they hadn’t spotted the warm patch’s influence, but that’s not to say emissions aren’t having other impacts, according to the task force assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“The report is not dismissive of global warming at all,” said Marty Hoerling, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Lab. “At the same time, drought is not a consequence of the warming planet to date.”
But critics included Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth Science Center. He quickly penned a piece online, calling the report “deeply flawed” because of how it interpreted ocean and Arctic sea ice data, and focused on rainfall while paying “only the slightest lip service” to record warm temperatures in California.
No evidence whatsoever exists to support the catastrophic effects of AGW.
None.
So all the people saying there is are lying? How do you account for them in your milieu? Deliberately lying conspiracy?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions