I am lying about what my opinion is now?
Do tell.
How is it intellectually dishonest?
My question was general in nature. You were the one that added the implication that I was talking about your list. Quit lying that I was implying it was about your list.
No where was that explicit in the question:
Is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
If you want to whine about it, let's add a word for clarification, and I will ask for a fourth time:
"In general, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?"
Can you answer this question?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-30-2012 at 01:32 PM.
I am lying about what my opinion is now?
Do tell.
Ok then.
We can agree, that people who earn PhD's in a subject can be more knowledgeable about that subject than people who do not study it.
Fair?
Oh please, does this really work on people you talk to? Now you are insulting my intelligence. The answer you are going to get has been given.
It has been stated to you repeatedly that there is nothing implied about the list so stating otherwise in another form and claiming it is an "opinion" still makes it a lie.
So, we can then assume that yes, it is possible, generally to imply things without explicitly stating them.
Even idiots can understand that. I mean, one would have to be an idiot not to acknowledge that things can be implied without being explicit.
See how that works? Notice I didn't call you an idiot. You are not an idiot.
I am only saying that one has to be a complete moron not to be able to grasp that things can be implied without being explicit.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-30-2012 at 02:15 PM. Reason: mmm grammar.
No. It makes it my opinion.
You might think my opinion is incorrect.
I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
If you would follow along with honest answers to my questions, I could show you why I think that.
While it does make me a bit sad that I can't seem to get them, I am somewhat comforted by the fact that evasiveness to such questions supports the OP.
And with that.. lunch is over.
Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
So, with 900 papers all supporting the skepticism of a catastrophic outcome from AGW, it is still possible that we could see catastrophic outcomes from AGW?Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?
It's possible. It's also possible that Earth experiences catastrophic climate change due to non-anthropogenic causes. At least there is some historical precedent for that.
Its like hes Darrin's twin. The list says it supports one thing "anti-AGW" and then he claims stupidty about 'irrefutable facts.' He is a hack and a ty one at that.
Oh and as for the Village Choice:
its interesting how you accuse MiG of cherry picking and then cherry pick within the papers you cite and this article right here. Only quote the conclusions you agree with right?There isn't likely to be much corporate support there. These guys come from the far side of liberal. Saying so is not to detract from their exhaustively detailed reportage and calmly convincing tone; indeed, the book is generally light on rhetoric, and there's hardly a radical quoted. But the public stranglehold of corrupt experts is framed as a crisis of "democracy," which the authors see as not just freedom from having your mind messed with, but also a level of engagement that drives citizens to become their own experts. And in their conclusion, Rampton and Stauber reveal the depth of their colors: "Activism enriches our lives in multiple ways. It brings us into personal contact with other people who are informed, passionate, and altruistic. . . . It is a path to enlightenment."
You are a sophist without context.
And no support of communism or any of the other ad hominems. It also points to their transparency.
So popwatch do you or any of your 'contributors' have any corporate or lobby donors or work for and energy-industry corporations or political lobbys?
Who gives a what you intended? It is what it is ans at best you come across as coy.
Is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
You guys sure are upset about the existence of a peer-reviewed list of papers that are non-alarmist.
Kind of hard to make such a list WIHOUT cherry-picking them, no? It's hilarious that you guys think there's some nefarious motive behind this list when its purpose is stated EXPLICITLY.
This , again? Please.
Who gives a if its difficult. Its difficult to fly without mechanical assistance too. 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.
What becomes clear at that point is that the interest much with you is winning the argument and a blatant disregard for the truth.
How about we hear more circular logic as to whats irrefutable?
And what again? I haven't asked that about you but hes some random individual with a random cite.
Why is asking if there is a conflict of interest ? It certainly speaks to credibility that you dissemble from it.
What is it you and RG think is implied?
When I go to a site like skepticalscience, I take them at their word that their mission in life is to give "deniers" the what-for. There doesn't appear to be a more sinistermotive.
You will have to ask RG that but i think its a reasonable question adn that he avoids answering it like the plague speaks volumes.What is it you and RG think is implied?
When I go to a site like skepticalscience, I take them at their word that their mission in life is to give "deniers" the what-for. There doesn't appear to be a more sinister
I don't believe you.
Fuzzy,
Create a list of US presidents with the first name "William".
Remember, no cherry picking.
So have I.Have to admit, I have enjoyed the last few pages of this thread.
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.
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,
Enjoy the list, Darrin. Needing a list like that is fairly telling, in my opinion.
Sidestepping is another tactic he uses. He will lock you up in unimportant things and claim victory.
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.
You would then use the list to prove that all presidents were named William, right?Fuzzy,
Create a list of US presidents with the first name "William".
Remember, no cherry picking.
RG will answer every question directed at him. I've never seen him avoid a question or term it irrelevant.
I find it hilarious he's the one being accused of dancing here.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
