No, I don't because I've never called anyone a Holocaust denier. I could give two s about that argument. What did you want me to say about it, Darrin? Is this another example of where you focus on the science?
Hmmm. You latched onto that little nugget too. I guess you have no thoughts on the Holocaust denier comparison.
No, I don't because I've never called anyone a Holocaust denier. I could give two s about that argument. What did you want me to say about it, Darrin? Is this another example of where you focus on the science?
Probably because i think its a red herring as to the truth behind the science. I am not much interested in labels. I am interested in what stuff does. I am not interested in gross simplifications or conflations so dumb people can understand.
For example when I label you a sophist I point to specific behaviors of yours such as waffling about the existence of warming, lip-service as to respect for BEST, demonstrated intellectual laziness by posting links based on les without having read the content, or deception as to your sources.
Even hear you fail to make your own argument you just support someone elses argument because you like the conclusion. You are an advocate for a conclusion and could care less for the truthfulness of how that conclusion is reached.
I don't get how I get the burden of addressing a strawman I didn't put up. You just built a strawman out of a strawman, Darrin. Nice.
lol straw˛
I posted a blog about equating climate change denial to Holocaust denial and also posted one reader comment. You two lemmings saw "cosmic rays" in the reader comment, but the blog wasn't about that. But, you two saw a "shiny thing" and decided to comment on it. Lol.
The idea that debate is stifled or that there is some kind of effort to stifle it is built out of ignorance. The peer review process is wide open and anyone is able to submit their research to any number of journals in order to get it out there. I mean, haven't you seen PopTech's list? Haven't you yourself USED that list Darrin? So how is is possible that you on one hand hold this list as an example of how peer reviewed science is out there to support skeptic views and then in the other hand proclaim that skeptics are being silenced by some kind of conspiracy? Its completely laughable that you can't get your ideas straight.
If you want to argue that the Mann's and the Hanson's of the world are compromised through their pride, funding, agenda or whatever then go right ahead. Its a damn stupid and pointless argument to make, however. For every climate scientist you've ever heard of or seen on TV somewhere there are thousands of others of whom you will never hear about. You don't think there are thousands of people out there who would love nothing more than to make their name off of being the one who came up with the theory that destroyed AGW?
If it was possible to disprove AGW with knowledge we currently have then someone would be on it in no time. This is what scientists live for.
Cosmic ray influences on cloud formation are currently being studied at CERN. If having research done on that type of theory at the world's highest profile scientific facility isn't good enough then I don't think you'll ever be satisfied.
Dupe
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 05-17-2012 at 06:01 PM.
You're too damn stupid to even catch the you say. About the only thing you fail worse at than logic is being introspective.
In any event, you said the comment was good. You posted the entire comment. You didn't just post a comment about some bull holocaust association. I commented on what I felt was noteworthy about the comment. How the does it make me a lemming when I comment on what you posted? Because I didn't comment about the little part YOU wanted me to comment on?
I'm sorry I didn't go after what you wanted me to go after because it doesn't apply to me and I don't have any interest in it. Maybe instead of using other people's words to convey your simplistic idea you should just say it? Its not my fault that you're too stupid to actually come up with your own arguments.
So, once again, what is it you wanted me to say about the Holocaust stuff? You think I equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers? Have I ever done that? Once again, why should I bear the burden of defending or decrying something I neither care about or have done?
You and FuzzyDumb both commented on something that was in ing parentheses(cosmic rays, for example).
I guess you really thought he was emphasizing that point.
whatever
As has been pointed out to you in Manny's recent post YOU emphasized it.You and FuzzyDumb both commented on something that was in ing parentheses
I guess you really thought he was emphasizing that point.
whatever
Further, you are going to have to try harder.
If you are going to call me stupid, you should try and point to specific examples. I have enough self-confidence that while someone can persuade me they are more intelligent, you are not going to persuade me that I am dumb. Think about your audience.
Its the difference between calling me a dumb and leaving it at that and
See the difference?
I made a short comment on that. I made a much longer post about something far more substantive in the comment and you have nothing to say about that. Instead, you want to do exactly what you accused me of: Focusing on your "shiny thing".
Furthermore you have completely ignored the following:
So, once again, what is it you wanted me to say about the Holocaust stuff? You think I equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers? Have I ever done that? Once again, why should I bear the burden of defending or decrying something I neither care about or have done?
Are you sure you really want to accuse me of being the one who focuses on the inane parts of posts?
OMG...
What a crybaby.
Darrin's right. You focus on the "shiny thing" you can criticize, and ignore the more important things presented. probably because you know you have no grounds to argue against them.
Why is other people conflating skeptics to holocaust deniers important?
I brought it up early in this thread
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=58
Some really good posts on first few pages of this thread. Appears that many have lost interest. I don't blame them
You're still ignoring what I said. Not shiny enough for you?
Why must you ask questions based on strawman premises? It was a loaded question. The cliche example of such methods are 'why do you beat your wife?'
I read the responses for the first page or so after you made that and I would like you to point us to where your question was justified. You are just trying to deflect the attention away from the science.
You have essentially posted something that attributes us incorrectly to conflating you to the holocaust debate. you also do not stand by the other comments in the post you said was a good comment.
This once again points to your sophistry. Not only do we have the previous examples I listed but additionally you dissemble from his other comments.
Do you stand by anything you claim or post? It sure doesn't seem like it.
So you dont have a theory.
Get in the corner with the twoofers and cosmored.
If you can't give me testable, falsifiable hypotheses, you are a conspiracy theorist.
You don't worry about it, because it directly contradicts your theory.
That is not the hallmark of good science, that is the hallmark of pseudoscientific bull .
You are the one claiming that we are not adding any concentration of CO2 to the atmosphere with all of our emissions.
Where is the extra CO2 coming from then? Why is CO2 concentration climbing?
I still don't see a testable hypothesis here.
Meh.
Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.
If you don't like being lumped in with other conspira s, quit acting like them.
If you want to be a ing crybaby about it, here is your official victim card:
To be clear:
Holocaust deniers are a whole other level of crazy racist s.
AGW deniers are just, in general, idiots. IMO.
A theory about the levels of 13C vs 12C?
I don't know what you're looking for. There are studies that show that CO2 from fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere more than natural CO2, and there are studies that shows that theory has no merit. There are no definitive answers here, that's why I don't look care.
Please specify about what. So may things, I think we are crossing answers and questions. Do you mean about the absorption of CO2 by the ocean, and in my belief the absorbing less than it would if it wasn't warming?
Please elaborate on what you base that on, and which of the many things I said.
I often have a hard time keeping up with the specific chain of answers here, especially day by day. It's not like sitting at a table with someone debating an issue.
What a dissembling copout.
You are twisting my words.
Please read my explanations again. I am growing weary of you not understand it.
Twisting what people mean again. I sure wish I could expect better of you.Meh.
Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.
If you don't like being lumped in with other conspira s, quit acting like them.
If you want to be a ing crybaby about it, here is your official victim card:
To be clear:
Holocaust deniers are a whole other level of crazy racist s.
AGW deniers are just, in general, idiots. IMO.
I am growing weary of your inability to form a testable hypothesis.
Setting aside humility for a second:
I am very intelligent, with a very high ability to understand written material, analyse it, and synthesize it into meaningful conclusions.
Are you sure the problem is at my end?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
