Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
ClimateGate
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [qb] you know, the first sign of a weak case is when the debater starts callling names and yuou're down to that- both with regards to the scientists and myself- sad really.[/qb][/QUOTE]Man, we need a "LOL" emoticon! Your entire argument strategy has been one big ad hominem campaign against those you disagree with and myself, personally, [b]and now you're saying [i]I'm name-calling[/i][/b]? Why, because in a post where I tried to draw you back to the science I said you delivered a retarded response and silly defense of your ad hominem campaign? Or because I noted that environmentalism was a religion? That's just rich, dude. Especially when you're the one referring to "global warminng deniers", a classic association with "Holocaust denier". [QUOTE]You're deciding that global warming is a hoax based on what? twelve (maybe) scientists that [i]might[/i] have been fixing data?[/QUOTE]Not a hoax. A hoax is a deliberate perpetration of a falsehood that the hoaxer knows to be false. While arguments could be made regarding some of the CRU and New Zealand guys, the evidence suggests that even when they were fudging data or turning cooling stations into warming stations they were doing so because they believed it was supposed to be warming. I think that the majority of climate scientists think global warming is true, (though again I note that numbers of adherents are irrelevant in determining truth value). However, I also think many of them have been misled into that belief by false evidence and the well-fostered groupthink produced by CRU guys exerting control over the climate science establishment. [QUOTE]Consider how badly the polluters of greenhouse gases want that to be rue[/QUOTE]When are you going to admit that things like that don't matter? By that reasoning you should be pro-Israel, because neo-Nazis want Israel to be viewed negatively, therefore we must reject as true whatever they want us to believe. Except what you're doing is actually worse, because whereas one's view of Israel is a question of moral and political judgement, one's view of objective reality is not (or at least shouldn't be). [QUOTE]If you have some scientific data showing that the very real, accepted, measured warming of the planet is NOT happening, please present it-[/QUOTE]I've already pointed you in those directions, but you were more interested in character attacks. You still are, too. But nonetheless, here are a few things for you to ponder, just some quickies: [URL=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/]The IPCC data for northern Australia is false.[/URL] [URL=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-92-surrounded-by-science/]New Zealand temps have been dicked around with, and a relative handful of US stations meet good criteria.[/URL] [URL=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/]What warming there is is well within historic norms.[/URL] [URL=http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=18#comment-2669]Interesting chart showing the result of surface station culling and remaining temperature data by weight.[/URL] [QUOTE]The desperate need to equate enviromentalism with religion is an old ploy first used by the coal industry-[/QUOTE]There you go again. Don't consider the statement on its own merit (e.g. "do environmentalism and environmentalist beliefs share traits with religion and religious beliefs?"). Just try to associate it with someone or some group that has or can be made a villain. Also call it a desperate move, and imply that your opponent is mindlessly using it: [QUOTE]I'm sorta suprised to see you parroting it here.[/QUOTE]There is no logical basis to your argumentation strategy at all. It is pure emotionalism. I realize logical, rational argumentation can be quite a bore at times, but seriously, would you at least try? [QUOTE]Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best? [/QB][/QUOTE]Better that than to blow trillions of real dollars and avoid making trillions of additional dollars due to an overreaction to largely natural phenomena. We would do just as well (and have as much effect) blowing trillions on a space mission to try to 'fix' the sun's current low output. As for me, if I had trillions of planetary dollars to spend and global-government control of all nations to plan to exercise as is being discussed at Copenhagen, I'd sooner be working to install a monitoring system for potential space object impacts and such. That's a more realistic threat. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3