You do not consider correcting misinformation important?
It is not evasive to factually state I do not believe anyone has established a method to determine a reasonable number. Should I lie?
Attempting to determine the ratio of how many papers the list represents in relation to all papers that contain a common term is a red herring to the purpose of the list and the scientific validity of any of the papers on it.
Whether the list is "meaningful", "fair" or "important" is all subjective.
Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position? If not then you only purpose for arguing for a volume ratio is an argumentum ad populum.
Please quote where this "theory" is stated on the list.
There is nothing to pretend as this is an irrefutable fact and explicitly stated on the list. Your snide comment clearly implies you biased intent towards the list.
The intention of the list is quite obvious because it is explicitly stated,
Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs
A strawman argument is not a valid argument. My personal position is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that the list is not my theory nor any theory and it's purpose is explicitly stated as a resource.
You do not consider correcting misinformation important?
Don't forget this PT. Show exactly how anything I said was an argumentum ad populum.
EXACTLY.
I am pretty sure I know where this is going, but hey, you want to go there, that's fine.
It isn't "a red herring to the list". I don't give a rats ass about "the purpose of the list as you state".
I don't give a rats ass about "all the papers that contain a common term".
I want to know the wider context.
Sure there is a list. Sure there is a stated purpose for the list. I want to know something beyond that. There are policy choices to make, based on ambiguous evidence.
It is important? What does it mean in the wider issue?
That is why attempting to fathom how much of the evidence it represents is meaningful.
I am not going to read everything, nor do I have time. I can, however, make reasonable statements about what the evidence overall shows.
Once again, evasive and obfuscating. Not surprising.
I will have to keep it simple then.
Yes or no, is it possible to imply something without explicitly stating it?
I do consider correcting misinformation important.
Strawman arguments are not valid. That is correct.The rest of the website has a pretty clear point of view, and any reasonable reading of your preferred and implied theory is that "rising CO2 levels will not have any catastrophic effect"
Is this your opinion, or not?
It is an honest question, asked plainly. If I am to avoid misrepresenting your opinion or arguments, then you will need to spell them out so that I can understand.
I didn't ask you if your personal opinion was relevant to the "the irrefutable fact that the list is not my theory".
I asked you what your personal opinion was.
It was a yes or no question.
Since you did not answer it, then I will ask again.
It appears your preferred and implied theory is that "rising CO2 levels will not have any catastrophic effect"
Is this your opinion, or not?
again, past my bedtime. PT, take your time.
I will expect answers to my questions. If you dont' intend on being honest or answering fair questions in a straightforward manner, then let me know now, so I can save myself the time.
It is an assumption by some that what is happening now is far faster let alone unusual at all. Extinctions are not a very quick process either,
Extinction Turns Out to Be a Slow, Slow Process (The New York Times, October 24, 2000)
Actually there is doubt of both a current extinction event and it being anthropogenic. I do not believe supporting evolution to be short sighted. There is scientific evidence that they will not fall apart due to climate change.
Last edited by Poptech; 04-30-2012 at 02:47 AM.
For what purpose? As volume of papers cannot be used to determine the scientific validity of a theory.
So you believe that science is correct based on who publishes more papers?
This is incorrect as the list contains various mutually exclusive papers. The list is all inclusive to skeptic viewpoints. A purpose of the list was to provide what in many cases was not being presented at all, which makes your charge ironic.
Your statement was a strawman argument,
No such representation was done.
I understand very well the possibility exists for the purpose of the list to be misinterpreted. No such "view" of the science is being presented as the list is not a theory. The existence of mutually exclusive papers on the list invalidates your charge.
Why are you so concerned that a scientific resource exists for skeptics that you have to continue to disingenuously try to label it a "scientific view"? Do you really think your dishonest reverse psychological argument is going to work on me? Are you that naive? Lets get this out of the way as this is tedious and a waste of time,
This list will only ever include peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.
No what I accurately stated was, "It supports the argument that catastrophic permafrost melting is unlikely." It's "importance" is subjective. Skeptics believe it is important. The existence of other papers that support a different view does not change this.
It is a lie that the list is dishonest as it does not claim to be an overview of all research. You failed attempts at disingenuously labeling the list as such is very desperate.
I am doing no such thing.
So when you cannot win the argument you resort to lying?
Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position? If not then you only purpose for arguing for a volume ratio is an argumentum ad populum.
Define context and provide a source available on the Internet for the definition.
...for an argumentum ad populum.
If you are interested in an argumentum ad populum.
Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied.
Yes you did but with the implication that it is an implied theory of the list which is false so I am not going to support your lie.
I will expect you to stop lying about the list.
So I'm the one being dishonest here? Ok. I'm not concerned at all about your list. I decided to engage you since you decided it was worth your time to post here. The internet is filled with a ton of pages that provide out of context information on subjects. Your entrance to the ranks of those webpages does affect me in the least.
The question I posed:
Why not make a more comprehensive list?
has been dodged several times. I get it though. Its easy to search the web and find sites that claim to provide evidence for nearly any position on any subject. Some will even provide actual scientific articles. The actual value of these webpages is extremely limited because they only provide a narrow look.
Its good your looking out for skeptics though. Its hard for them actually find those articles in existing databases due to the fact that when you search for climate change on those databases you're going to get all the scientific literature and not simply a small segment meant to produce an agenda. You make it easier for people like Darrin to claim they know of scientific literature and what actual research in the field is saying when in fact they're just browsing over a list of out of context research.
Your goal has been accomplished quite well. Bravo.
Not because of me.
I don't believe you. I know you like to say that, but no matter what evidence you see to show the AGW alarmist views are in error, you never prevent yourself as skeptical.
It's not flawed logic just because you don't understand it.
I have said several time I mix up terminology sometimes. that does not mean I don't understand, as you continually accuse me of.
How many times have I asked people to clarify, and asked them to ask me when I need to clarify. How many times have i pointed out people are arguing against a point I did not make, but they misconstrue it as something else?
I hope you are ready for an honest debate with PopTech. That would be a first.
Then please.
What were you trying to convey as a message when you pointed out the statistical percentage? Were you implying that 0.45% should be disregarded because of so many other opposing studies?
More information regarding the effect of ENSO on global temps:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2...ck-of-warming/
Darrin will tell us its just a pet theory, though.
Incidently, ENSO is starting to enter an El Nino phase in April. The April temperature relative to the past few years has taken quite a climb after a relatively cool March globally. Will be very interesting to see how the rest of the year plays out regarding ENSO.
Expected to exceed... only by assumed science and modeling that they keep finding flaws in.
We have had at least 4 periods of time with warmer temperatures than today since the last ice age alone. CO2 had nothing to do with these temperature increases.
LOL....
PopTech...
You can see trying to reason with Fuzzy is useless. I have him on IGNORE because he seem to lack any integrity, and is very antagonistic towards me.
He does that frequently, next he will claim you don't understand a large part of science and not elaborate on why he says that.
He is another that tries to beat down the messenger.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)