Page 132 of 161 FirstFirst ... 3282122128129130131132133134135136142 ... LastLast
Results 3,276 to 3,300 of 4001
  1. #3276
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    The point is that PopularSophist accused RG and MiG of cherry picking and all that entails then turns around and cherry picks internally of papers within the list and conclusions of articles.
    FuzzyDumbkins, why do you continue to lie? I only accussed RG of cherry picking. The list is a resource of, "Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" and is all inclusive to this subject. No peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm is excluded, therefore what is included on the list cannot be claimed to be cherry picked.
    Poptech is offline

  2. #3277
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I don't think they have a sinister motive. I think its a fairly worthless motive. When I try to learn about a subject, I don't only search for information on the subject that happens to agree with a preconceived notion of the subject.
    Then you should not read the IPCC reports. What is clear is you do not search for information that may disagree with your preconceived notion on a subject.

    I do think that Poptech avoided a direct question several times and it appears he or she is very adapt at doing so. I also think some of the scientific "facts" Poptech has posted are fairly ignorant,
    RG avoided my request first by asking his "question",

    "Please quote where this "theory" is stated on the list."

    When he can provide this quote, I will answer his question.

    Let me know if you really want to play this game of failing to answer questions because I can ask a lot of questions.

    I have not posted any scientific facts that are ignorant.
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3278
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    You would then use the list to prove that all presidents were named William, right?
    This is a flawed analogy as it is not his point nor is it related to my list. His point was actually excellent and something you have no argument for.
    Poptech is offline

  4. #3279
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Yeah because claiming something to be irrefutable and then discounting it out of hand isn't sidestepping....

    Why is it irrefutable? Because i said so.
    Nothing has be claimed to be irrefutable and then discounted out of hand. Regardless of your denial about the purpose of the list the truth does not change.
    Poptech is offline

  5. #3280
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    You don't even bother to read before you post it once again:
    That is a laughable joke and barely includes any papers.
    Poptech is offline

  6. #3281
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I have journal access and I live with a masters holding librarian. I don't need lists prepared by others as I'm more than capable of finding information on the subject. Pretty damn sure I've read more papers on climate science in the past week than you've read...ever.

    Keep telling yourself that I'm at the level you are, Darrin, and that I need others to make lists for me.
    As you have repeatedly demonstrated in this debate you are not intellectually superior to Darrin or anyone else. It is rather pathetic to see you attempt this.
    Poptech is offline

  7. #3282
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Internally within some of the papers certainly.
    Really? Which papers on my list claim all the presidents were named William?

    Its a list that shows both sides of the argument.


    Please stop I have to be able to type without laughing so hard.

    The Truth about Skeptical Science
    Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
    I do not get my science from cartoonists, why alarmists do simply amazed me.

    All of my hundreds of comments were deleted from their site because they could not debate me.
    Last edited by Poptech; 04-30-2012 at 08:57 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  8. #3283
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    You've posted "facts". Not facts. If they were facts, how would they be ignorant?

    You avoided the question yet again.

    Your posts are fairly transparent, however. Much like the list.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  9. #3284
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    The argument has been about cherry picking. You just posted a site that supports AGW theory that posts articles that support both positions: skeptic and that of most of the scientific community.
    The cherry picking argument in relation to which papers appear on the 900 list is invalid. The link he posted has a token amount of skeptic papers that equates to a cruel joke on the uniformed. You are informed, correct?

    Compare that to PopSophists list: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
    FuzzyDumbkins, please provide the comparison and show that every paper on my list is on theirs. I will wait for your failure.
    Poptech is offline

  10. #3285
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    No doubt you killed them with "irrefutable facts."
    MannyIsGod is offline

  11. #3286
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Quit using strawmen arguments to misrepresent my opinions.
    Is the truth relevant? Yes or No?

    Can only I know the true intent of why I created the list? Yes or No?
    Poptech is offline

  12. #3287
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
    Anything is possible.

    Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that does not harm any of the species within that ecosystem, while having some or all of the species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage? Yes or No?

    Is it possible to believe an impact will be catastrophic on any given ecosystem and also believe it will harm or kill some of the species within that ecosystem and later learn this belief to be wrong? Yes or No?

    Does the rate of change matter to whether or not a species can adapt to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out?
    This is unknown as no such information is available for all species.

    Is it possible that a species can adapt regardless of the rate of change to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out? Yes or No?

    Is it possible that all species can adapt to the current rate of change? Yes or No?

    Is it possible that the current rate of change is not unusual in the historic record? Yes or No?
    Poptech is offline

  13. #3288
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    You've posted "facts". Not facts. If they were facts, how would they be ignorant?
    I did not post the word facts in quotes.
    Poptech is offline

  14. #3289
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    No doubt you killed them with "irrefutable facts."
    Quote in this discussion where I used the word "irrefutable" and prove that these facts are refutable.
    Poptech is offline

  15. #3290
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Why are you lying? Where does the list say it supports "anti-AGW"? Nor have I claimed stupidity about anything. When you have nothing left to argue you obvious resort to ad hominem and lies. You would not be this defensive now if you had took the time to read things clearly before making careless statements like you did earlier in this discussion.


    You are very bad at following a conversation as I said Randomguy cherry picked not Mig and it is the Village Voice nor "Choice. The purpose of the quote was to show irrefutable evidence that even liberal publications recognize the founders of Sourcewatch to be extreme left-wing. It was not cherry picked because the context as I used it did not change with removal of the rest of the content which was irrelevant to this argument.


    More ad hominem lies.


    Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?


    FuzzyDumbkins, we have zero donors and no association with any lobby or energy corporation. You will have to try harder.
    Sure it was RG. Now address the hypocrisy in doing so. Is it okay for him to look at random samples of your list or is it not okay for you to pull things out of context from papers and articles?

    Of course you do not address the discussion of the Village Voice quote context. I mean they only said that they were not radicals, did not resort to rhetoric and were reasonable in their approach. That is another of a foundation of calling you a sophist. You ignore good points and instead dissemble. It is not ad hominem either because it speaks to any judge of a debate as to how you debate ie you will argue a point at all cost ie your credibility.

    I will address your question directly and ask for you to qualify the truth of the premise.

    First where is the verifiable source that says they are anti-capitalist?

    Specifically no you cannot. Very left is not by definition anti-capitalist. Very left wing can mean progressives, civil libertarians, feminists, pacifists, civil rights leaders or any other of a myriad of possibility. Even those that are against laissez faire capitalism such as those that believe in anti-trust laws and specific market regulations are not 'socialists' or 'communists.'

    All of that has nothing to do with their credibility anyway. That Village Voice article spoke to their credibility but you ignore that, claim that they called them anti-capitalist --which they didn't,-- and call it a day.

    Your article is unfounded .

    Prevaricate is the term RG used. It makes sense that he would do that with you.

    And I don't have to try very hard. As i said you are very transparent. When I state that you are a sophist we point to your dissembling and prevaricating nature with specific examples. If you want to claim that I am dumb on the basis of a mixup of names or recollection of numbers then feel free. It bothers me not at all.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  16. #3291
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Really? Which papers on my list claim all the presidents were named William?




    Please stop I have to be able to type without laughing so hard.

    The Truth about Skeptical Science

    I do not get my science from cartoonists, why alarmists do simply amazed me.

    All of my hundreds of comments were deleted from their site because they could not debate me.
    Cherry picking data from papers that concluded that warming was a reality. You know that, either that or youre stupid. i am going to go along with the rest of your behavior of dissembling.

    Its obvious at this point you know you are not winning the argument. Your takes are becoming weaker and weaker.

    I don't care about your assertions as to why you were deleted. It should be noted that this position is in direct contradiction of your assertion about your 'intentions.' Nevertheless, if this debate is any indication, they deleted it because you start ignoring points, resorting to hypocrisy and all other behavior of a sophist.

    You can laugh all you want. At the end of the day, their list does include papers from skeptics as well as proponents; whereas, your list only includes skeptics. You at no point address this. You posting other portions of their site are irrelevant to that truth. Nice attempt at a red herring though.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  17. #3292
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    The cherry picking argument in relation to which papers appear on the 900 list is invalid. The link he posted has a token amount of skeptic papers that equates to a cruel joke on the uniformed. You are informed, correct?


    FuzzyDumbkins, please provide the comparison and show that every paper on my list is on theirs. I will wait for your failure.
    Give me some logic as to why their list needs to include the totality of your list. Now you are being an egomaniac. The point is that their list includes arguments from both sides where yours only shows one.

    I imagine if you were to talk to MiG he would say how there proponent list is missing some compelling work as well. That they are not exhaustive is besides the point.

    This is quite easy to refute. Try harder.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  18. #3293
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    They don't know except that it is my avatar. They were using it as a new facepalm symbol.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-30-2012 at 10:58 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #3294
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I am well aware you have no interest in the truth.


    This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.

    You should be able to read this response multiple times already.
    Don't let these ankle biters make you too angry. They latch on to irrelevant things all the time. Half the time, they don't even know why they're barking.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  20. #3295
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Is the truth relevant? Yes or No?

    Can only I know the true intent of why I created the list? Yes or No?
    LOL...

    You wouldn't believe how many times these people tell me what's on my mind.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  21. #3296
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Don't let these ankle biters make you too angry. They latch on to irrelevant things all the time. Half the time, they don't even know why they're barking.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  22. #3297
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Manny...

    Do you remember how the sea ice thing started? Why do you sidestep it?

    Post #2569:

    Food for thought...

    Non of us disagree that the norther ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?

    Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.





    What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?

    LOL...

    The links to the images have changed values since that post so many days back. The norther ice retreat is now at 0.173 million sq. km. and the southern ice is at a positive 0.774 million sq. km.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-30-2012 at 11:55 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  23. #3298
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    you.

    Find a single question in this thread that I have "sidestepped". I also don't change topics unnecessarily.

    , find a single fair question that I have ever sidestepped.

    I will admit to occasionally missing one or two.
    Not going to go back and find any. I will remind you however, you are now on record of saying you don't. Please remember that the next time I call you on something on it.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  24. #3299
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.
    I'll bet if WC takes a Stanford Intelligence Test that he would score very low. Supposition inserted for fact an argument doesn't make.

    Really all we need now is for him to post some more brochures for natural gas boiler generators and the cycle will be complete.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  25. #3300
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Holy ! Northern ice is decreasing and southern ice is gaining since you posted the images?!?!?!?!??!!

    Its like the Southern Hemisphere is headed to Winter and we're headed to Summer or something. ing crazy.

    Really do need that facepalm icon. Badly.
    MannyIsGod is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •