Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and Th'Pusher I hope you noted how poptart dodged the quote about his lack of degree.

[Poptech]

If I make no claim that the Spurs do not lose any games and they are not referenced on my hypothetical site, are the data still not cherry picked?

Not if it is just a list of games the Spurs won and led as such.

[Th'Pusher]

Pop. Do you have a degree? I do. Can you just answer basic questions?

[Poptech]

The requirements are met because you think you get to speak for other people. IOW, because you say so. So where is Idso's proxy?

Are you mentally deranged? I don't speak for anyone, they all speak for themselves.

[Poptech]

Pop. Do you have a degree? I do. Can you just answer basic questions?

Of course, my university education was in Computer Science / Information Technology which is irrelevant.

[Poptech]

Oh and Th'Pusher I hope you noted how poptech dodged the quote about his lack of degree.

Puppet boy, I don't answer stupid questions from brain damaged stoners.

[Th'Pusher]

Of course, my university education was in Computer Science / Information Technology which is irrelevant.

Are you a code monkey?

[Poptech]

Are you a code monkey?

It is not possible for me to be an ad hominem.

[Th'Pusher]

It is not possible for me to be an ad hominem.

Don't be so sensitive. It's industry jargon. I'll rephrase. Is your primary function to write code?

[Poptech]

Don't be so sensitive. It's industry jargon. I'll rephrase. Is your primary function to write code?

No it is not industry jargon and I am not here for your entertainment. You have no idea what my primary function is and never will.

[Th'Pusher]

No it is not industry jargon and I am not here for your entertainment. You have no idea what my primary function is and never will.

It is industry jargon. I know. I work in the industry.

I was simply asking questions. Trying to get to know Poptech. Poptech appears to be both hyper-sensitive and emotionally attached to his "work". I don't know much about PopTech, but I do know that.

[Th'Pusher]

...and whether you like it or not, you are here for my entertainment.

It made me smile when I saw you came back to spurstalk to vigorously defend your "work". The ridiculous number of claims of libel are my favorite.

[Poptech]

It is industry jargon. I know. I work in the industry.

No it is not, it is personal attack against programmers. Anyone who works in the industry would know this, thus you obviously do not.

[Poptech]

...and whether you like it or not, you are here for my entertainment.

Sure, keep believing that.

It made me smile when I saw you came back to spurstalk to vigorously defend your "work". The ridiculous number of claims of libel are my favorite.

I always come back to drive traffic to my site, puppet boy is good for that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you mentally deranged? I don't speak for anyone, they all speak for themselves.

So show me where Idso or the other guy put together your list. You don't seem to understand what a proxy means. You are piggy backing of the peer review process and using their stuff yet don't submit your own work and have it pass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course, my university education was in Computer Science / Information Technology which is irrelevant.

Do you have a degree? University education does not necessarily mean degree.

[Yonivore]

Did I miss it? Did someone post the consensus model that show when the Earth is going to start warming again?

[Th'Pusher]

I always come back to drive traffic to my site, puppet boy is good for that.

No one believes that. Before your recent resurfacing, you hadn't posted here in over two years. If fuzzy is so good at driving traffic to your site, any logical business-minded person would have never left. You'd have just kept playing Svengali racking up al those site views. Maybe you'd have 300 YouTube subscribers.

[RandomGuy]

...

When I use the term ad hominem though, I refer very specifically to the generally accepted meaning used in most debates and formal philosophy, of flawed reasoning.

That makes it far clearer whose points and position is more supported by logical inference and factual statements, IMO.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

Considering you have yet to present a definition from an actual dictionary nothing can be considered "dueling". It has been well established you resort to juvenile personal attacks anytime you cannot debate someone, so there is no need for you to further demonstrate this. Last I checked you do not define the context of the words people use here. And, yes, it is quite clear my points and positions are more supported by logic and facts - this has been well established here.

Interesting.

You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.

I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to subs ute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.

I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

It is a simple yes or no question.

I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.

9

9-11 twoofers also have meltdowns when asked simple yes or no questions. We have whole sections of this forum dedicated to that.

The entire le of the thread has to do with pseudo-science and flawed reasoning. That question is about as on-topic as it gets.

I will ask a third time, a simple, fair, and honest question:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

[in passing-RG] am not answering loaded questions get used to it.

BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

Not really a loaded question, merely a request for an opinion, so that we can have some rational, reasonable basis for discussion.

A loaded question would take the form similar to the one you chose "Do you think your flawed reasoning...", i.e. it includes a starting assumption.

But that wasn't what I asked. There is no underlying assumption required to answer the question in a meaningful way.

It is simple, yes or no. It is a question that I can answer easily. "no", and I would hope that you would agree.

Fourth time.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

I am not here for your entertainment.

2nd time.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Not really an answer to my question. I asked you first.

I have already pointed out rather specifically that my question is not loaded, merely something seeking some basic groundwork.

The stated purpose of this thread is to draw parallels between dishonest sophist deniers such as yourself, and the dishonest sophists in the twoof and conspiracy movements.

Here is a thread by someone claiming the moon landings were faked in s studio. Cosmored can't answer questions in a straightforward manner.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

Here is a thread on 9-11. The people talking about controlled demolitions and government conspiracies can't answer questions in a straightforward manner.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...65131&page=101
Everytime to deflect, scorn, and otherwise dissemble, you make my case for me.

By all means, keep arguing like Cosmored.

Fourth time:

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

[RandomGuy]

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?

Of course I don't. How could I.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?

Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?

You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...

Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.

...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.

Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.

My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[Some copied and pasted stuff about faked pictures that continues for serveral posts]

[provably false video showing people who believe moon landings were faked actively make things up]

This [dust] issue is just too basic to obfuscate.

Too basic to obfuscate... like the fact you haven't presented any first hand accounts of someone involved in this massive hoax effort?


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

I've asked for opinions on photography forums and physics forums about Apollo and 9/11 anomalies...

Still no answer to my basic question.


Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

Here's the latest hoax-believer ariticle that I've just found.
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot....a-says-it.html

Just ignore the shills everybody.

Does that article have any first hand accounts? I noticed you didn't answer my question yet.


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

still waiting for FatFreddy's lame comeback on this.

[a whole lot of not answering the question]
That's why he's able to continue; in his private life his friends probably don't know what he really does and he probably tells them that he knows Apollo was a hoax.

This simple question doesn't go away, just because you keep ignoring it.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither mouse, nor Cosmored can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all you need to know.


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[9-11, grassy knoll, etc]

Chinese spacewalk bla bla bla.

Uh-huh. That didn't answer my question, as to why you and Cosmored can't find any first hand conspirators out of the tens of thousands that would have to be involved.

You still haven't answered the question.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither you, nor Cosmored can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all anyone reading this need to know.


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

Thanks for the support guys!
[here are some more spammed links, but no answer to RG's question].

You still haven't answered the question.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither you, nor mouse can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all anyone reading this need to know.

Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[obfuscating bull links, not one of which has any firsthand confessions from any of the hundreds of thousands of people who would have to be involved in a huge 60 year conspiracy to fake moon landings and all subsequent space travel and exploration]

Handwaving and obfuscation. Given that thens of thousands of geologists have studied NASA's lunar material, surely ONE of them was honest enough to come forward to say it was faked.

You have no first hand testimony from anyone involved in this huge plot still.

Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

What you pro-Apollo shills seem to be doing now is trying... [still no confessions from any of the hundreds of thousands of people that would have been required to perpetuate a 60 year conspiracy to fake all human space travel].

You still haven't answered the question.

It has only two possible answers. The fact that neither you, nor mouse can admit even the possibility their "moon landings were a hoax" theory is wrong says all anyone reading this need to know.

You have no first hand testimony from anyone involved in this huge plot yet?


Yes or no, is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?

[RandomGuy]

Just because it does not discriminate between skeptical viewpoints and it explicitly states the purpose of the website does not change the fact that the list is by definition cherry picked.

It's amusing that you think that is an irrefutable rebuttal. You just keep stating it over and over again without refuting anything.

Pretty much..

The person posting as Poptech has a broken brain, and it is broken much in the same way as many conspiracy theorists are broken.

Dishonest, and they assume the rest of the world thinks the way they do. Everybody who doubts them are "in on it" somehow, and they are on a personal crusade to get "the truth" out.

When you start stacking up what Poptech does and says against people like, say Avante, Robdiaz say about the "theory" of evolution, or Cosmored says about the "theory" that we landed people on the moon, or SA210 does when talking about the "theory" that some religious nutballs flew planes into buildings on 9-11-2001, it all starts fitting a pattern.

[Poptech]

So show me where Idso or the other guy put together your list. You don't seem to understand what a proxy means. You are piggy backing of the peer review process and using their stuff yet don't submit your own work and have it pass.

Puppet boy, they evaluate papers and have for years. If you had not caused yourself brain damage you would understand. I am compiling a list dumbass not writing a paper,

Criticism: The list has not been peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.

[Poptech]

Do you have a degree? University education does not necessarily mean degree.

Are you illiterate?

[Poptech]

No one believes that. Before your recent resurfacing, you hadn't posted here in over two years. If fuzzy is so good at driving traffic to your site, any logical business-minded person would have never left. You'd have just kept playing Svengali racking up al those site views. Maybe you'd have 300 YouTube subscribers.

I am racking up site views which is in the many millions. You do realize I have a YouTube channel just so I have the name held, same with my Facebook page that I never use. Even still the YouTube channels has a couple hundred thousands views with no effort on my part. I invest absolutely no time in the YouTube channel and use it occasionally to archive a video segment.

[Poptech]

Not really an answer to my question. I asked you first.

3rd time,

When did you stop beating your wife?