It's like the lamest attempt to mimic the NKVD.
Watch how you reason, comrade ...
He's an accountant. I don't think he can help himself. Those people are anal retentive and have obsessive-compulsive disorders. He probably washes his hands a lot and is afraid to pee in a public restroom.
It's like the lamest attempt to mimic the NKVD.
Watch how you reason, comrade ...
That's not what matters.
When the skeptics of climate change pointed out the missing energy was in the oceans, everyone in Climatology laughed. Now they want to use it for their side in an incorrect way. Since the ocean has a very long cycle, it makes equilibrium take decades to be close to equal, and over 800 years to complete.
I won't dispute the possible economic damage if the outlandish claims the climate will endure were not that of science fiction.
Now I've been doing so many other things today and came back, and lost track of some things. The woman in the video I posted didn't have the experience or degree of an expert, yet was an expert for the IPCCC.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-21-2011 at 03:10 PM.
LOL...
IPCCC... I like that, no need to change it!
CCCP!
I think climate change needs their own AttackWatch.com
Maybe RG could set that up?
I've started to enter some IPCCC data they list from ISMAM models and Bern-CC models. One thing I noted is disturbing to begin with. On the data used for CO2 abundance using the ISAM model, every reference of A1B to ISA92a used the same concentrations for 1970, 1980, and 1990. However, the IPCC used higher numbers!
Manny...
Why is this fraud there? Did they have to make something they didn't understand fit?
The OP rather clearly stated the purpose was for me to make my case regarding the nature of climate change skeptics, and the skepticism of the theory of human-caused climate change in general.
I don't find making information clear, easily understood, and presented in a meaningful way to be ridiculous at all.
You are just pissy because the skeptics, whom I suspect you sympathize with, are so ty at logical/critical thinking.
Am I wrong?
Et tu, brutus?
RG definitely has dedication. No one can take that from him.
One could say it might be misplaced, however.
I dunno why you'd suspect I was skeptical of climate change or would sympathize with the deniers.
You're making a ing list of people along with their "demerits." You know, the nazis also had lists too. Do you want a little gold star to appear next to their avatars?
RG... If you are going to attack logical fallacies, then how about looking into the AGW side and into their faults as well?
Meh.
You got any better, feel free to step up to the plate, counselor.
Science is about logic, data, and a fair hearing of competing ideas. In that it shares something in common with a courtroom, IMO.
If one side in a debate is patently unable to answer questions honestly or address issues in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of their case?
Feel free to point them out. I have tried to be as fair and intellectually honest as possible.
Is science about keeping lists too?
"You are wearing shoes. You know who else had shoes? Nazis."
Reductio ad Hitlerum
You're funny. I like you.
You didn't answer my question.
If one side in a debate is patently unable to answer questions honestly or address issues in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of their case?
All you ever do when fallacies are pointed out is agree its not a fallacy because there is a peer review paper out there.
Did you watch that Peer Review deception video?
Glad you appreciate my humor.
I don't really care about the subject of this thread. I'm pretty sure those who deny global warming are pretty ing re ed, so I don't spend time indulging their lunacy.
You still haven't given a good reason why keeping tally on the village idiots around here isn't pretty ing ridiculous. If you're unable to answer this honestly or address it in a logical manner, what do you think that says about the quality of your list?
You're using sarcasm. You know who else had sarcasm? Nazis.
Please at least separate those who deny into two categories.
Those who deny warming, and those who deny man is the major cause of warming. Almost all of us agree there has been and may still be warming. What we deny is that man is the major influence. Most of us "deniers" say most of the warming is natural.
I agree, those who deny warming itself, are re ed.
Then you are the re ed one.
The answer to your questions:
No, science is not about keeping lists. Pissing contests on the internet are all about that, though.
I don't pretend is means anything, other than some mild anecdotal value.
I got tired of thread after thread after thread after thread on the subject and thought one larger clearinghouse might be useful.
Is keeping a list silly? Yeah, I would say so. Am I going to keep at it? nah, I got kinda bored with it a while back.
I have however gotten into some interesting discussions here. As an exercise, I have gotten to read some actual scientific papers, and learned a great deal that I didn't know before. , I even exchanged email with one of the scientific papers' authors, and that was cool, after having read about the paper in the news, and the paper itself.
Underlying all my discussions, is that love of learning, silly list or no. I like streching myself a bit, and have learned a good deal, even from Darrin, when he can bring himself to post something worthwhile.
No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.
The REAL questions are:
Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?
This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with re ed doesn't add much to the debate.
I don't care.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
