The above is your slimy pandering.
Darrin on his crusade that the 'hiatus' disproved AGW. He links a half dozen articles to support his point and quips sarcastically that the 'heat is hiding in the oceans. In light of the recent El Nino he particularly looks ignorant.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7577805
The above was particularly ignorant.
The above is your slimy pandering.
Great work, detective Fuzzy
From 2011
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5414665
You lied in 2011 too. You clearly indicate that you are skeptical that it had warmed since the 1930s etc in the quotes above.
That your sophistry goes as the wind blows and is centered around your prefered political outcome of inaction is not lost, shill. You're arguing for a conclusion and it's obvious. It's why I call you a sophist piece of .
Oh noes -- not the "sophist piece of " insult.
I don't "believe" (because you can't "deny" unknown future events) that major American cities will be underwater because of plant food. If that makes me a SPOS, so be it.
At least you were exposed as being a liar.
I get that your not bothered by what you are. It is both and observation and an insult. I say it for the sake of our audience.
You denied AGW repeatedly from multiple angles; your latest dissemble notwithstanding. That isn't a lie.
You try to dissemble to another page I'll just repost it btw. that tactic won't work either, shill.
Bless your little heart. You tried.
I don't refute greenhouse effect or that it warmed in the 20rh century, if that's what you mean by AGW.
I will continue to "deny", i.e. be unconcerned, about global warming, climate change, or whatever they call it next.
Keep up the good fight and don't get so stoned that you forget to feed your cat.
You don't get it. By default, these other organizations do believe other organization. They are agreeing without really understanding the debate.
That fuzzy turd is too stupid to understand what you just said.
So ing what?
What does it take to post on blogs denying humans are causing climate change by burning fossil fuels?
I get it alright.
I get that the scientists who understand this best, understand it best.
And you, and the rest of the anti-science movement... don't.
Pretty simple.
You may not anymore because you realize how untenable your previous position but you are easily demonstrated as a sophist of the first order. Your deflection attempts with ad hominem flails underscore this well.
You did say that it hadn't warmed explicitly. You did say that the warming of CO2 was in question. Multiple times already quoted.
You can continue to be a sophist piece of if it suits you.
The anti-science movement are those denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC et al.
Science does not turn a blind eye to alternate hypothesis like they do in the settled religion of climatology.
O'Reilly's hit man Jesse Watters tells kids to doubt climate science because there were ‘no humans with cars’ after ice age
Fox News producer and occasional host Jesse Watters suggested on Monday that man-made climate change was likely a hoax because there were no “humans with cars” to generate greenhouse gasses at the end of the last ice age.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/fox-host-tells-kids-to-doubt-climate-science-because-there-were-no-humans-with-cars-after-ice-age/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Translation:
Thanks, Pee-Wee.
The problem with your bad arguements, and Darrins dumb links is that they prove the OP.
Since I am here to make the case that there is a whole lot of stupid pseudoscience out there, let's start with a little gem from the GOP's members on (chokes back vomit) the House Science Committee saying something so stupid that it took a late night comedian to point it out:
FWIW, feel free to expand on your assertion that someone is "denying discussion that disagrees with the IPCC".
Define your terms then provide some evidence. That is how we get to the truth, both in public policy and science.
Otherwise you are pulling something out of the creationist handbook. "teach the controversy" when there isn't one. Dishonest in the extreme.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.
Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.
What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.
Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data
Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread
Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy
PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy
(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...redux-edition/
Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/
This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...ain/#more-2959
Projections from computer models are not facts or evidence.
Comments like this are why I have doubts about you being an engineer. You can argue that they are not accurately modeling reality but to pretend like they don't try or that the models aren't improving with their topological arrangements and thermodynamic nad other factual functions is gratuitous nonsense that one can expect from a shill.
This is also another reason why I call you a sophist piece of . This conversation has been going on for years. Remember when your shilliness said you appreciated BEST and you were talking about models before?
Shall I link BEST's program weighing the models for accuracy and precision again? It's all a quite scientific search for the truth as opposed to your regurgitation of the old canned PT-style rebuttal.
Alert alert...
Strawmant alert...
Alert alert...
Logical fallacy alert.
Alert alert...
You want me to find statements where you claim a "massive conspiracy" among climate scientists?
"the peer review process is controlled by alarmist scientists to limit skeptical articles".
Also known as a conspiracy.
By all means, clarify. Do you now think there is no concerted effort to keep out "skeptical" arguments from peer-reviewed papers, i.e. there is no conspiracy?
Did I get that wrong?
Do tell.
Billions?
ROFL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienc..._United_States
Look at the pie chart.
That is for the US, one of the worlds richest countries.
Your conspiracy theory is ed pseudoscience, if you are going with "they are in it for the money".
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)