Sir Loin

"0"

Your first “contribution” to this thread was a claim that sunspots were to account for any past claims that any particular day was hot.

Your second “contribution” to this thread was that you were unaware of any credible scientific debate at all. And that the only debate you were aware of was from scientist in the employ of ExxonMobil.

Your third “contribution” to this thread was that you might not know everything there is to know about this topic. You’re not so stupid that since you have not heard of something, it doesn't exist.

Your fourth “contribution” to the thread was a complaint that I had not submitted links that rebutted your prior link absent claims listed above.

So in short, you like to make lazy arsed claims and try to highjack threads with the most commonly used clichés that pertain to the topic at hand. According to you there are no credible scientist or studies (peer reviewed) that debunk MMGW. According to you the theory of Man Made Global Warming is not a theory but an accepted fact. You need internet links, and you’re looking for someone who might have so little time and activity in their life that they will happily jump into that debate with you. So…..start your thread about the matter and see if you can get any takers.

Your intellectually dishonest dissembling is unappealing to me. Perhaps had you started the thread not regurgitating the idiotic “ExxonMobil” claim, your later decision to play adult intellectual would hold more appeal. Glancing at your continued “contribution” to the thread, all I see is an opportunity to participate in a circular argument with no particular end in sight.

You should have made note of my earlier reference to the similarities between religious zealots and MMGW ones. The whole deny deny deny, label all dissenters as heretics ruse is no more intelligent or attractive when you add the words “give me internet links” to it.

Glancing at your last two posts, I see you are still up to the same thing as before and frankly the impending tee time at my local golf course holds a lot more interest than your offered internet link circle jerk festival. Good luck with your “case” you’re going to need it. Keep starting your deeply thoughtful and straightforward “debates” with claims that the only people who dispute MMGW are ExxonMobil scientist and that you are ignorant of anything else. Whether you recognize it or not, that really does say so much to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

cascadian

Sir Loin,

Could you please stop posting all in bold?

It would be much appreciated and would help ensure that people actually read what you write.

You seem quite ardent about attacking Binary_Digit and reluctant to actually convince anyone of your viewpoint. Unless you count calling someone ignorant as some form of persuasion.

Also your admitted laziness and unwillingness to support your claims are duly noted.

__________________
"Fear is the mind killer."
~Bene Gesserit

SouthernDemocrat

Looks like your not up with the latest science on that:

Read more here: Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

Junk science is right. Steve Milloy, the guy that runs that site is a paid lobbyist for the chemical and fossil fuels industries. You may as well be getting your science from the president of the pathological liars association.

The New Scientist has an excellent collection of articles that debunk the myths propagated by propaganda sites like junkscience.

Read more here:

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

__________________
“A drink a day keeps the shrink away”

- Edward Abbey

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian Sir Loin,

Thus far I’ve had no problem getting people to both read and respond to my post. But I’ll consider your request and let you know what I decide.

I’m not really interested in trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint. We are not and have not been arguing my viewpoint. The argument such as it is has been mired in the denial that there any debate at all. Then credible debate, then credible peer reviewed debate…the circle spirals on.

And let me see if I get this right. The arbiter of what is “credible” here is the same goof that says if there is any debate it is not credible because “they” work for ExxonMobil. I feel so lazy not devoting time to such a fine circle jerk offer.

There is no credible debate at all, nah. Makes one wonder what all the arguing is about.

This oxymoronic circular argument has now become comic.

DeeJayH

if you were confident in what you post, you would not need to embolden the entire post
putting certain points of a post in bold highlights them
btu doing the whole post makes it seem as if you think everything you type is some sort of apocalyptic revelation
which translates into, not worth reading by most
just like people who type in all capitals, or whatever

__________________

Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones

cascadian

From the start of your interaction with Binary_Digit it has been "credible scientific debate." If you understand how scientific debate progresses, that implies peer reviewed research in the journal of the respective field. It's not a moving goal post. It's the same standard you will see applied throughout any number of debates on this matter.

Everyone makes their own call on what is credible. Some people actually understand the science and add knowledge to the field, some folks rely on trusted scientific authorities, and others might believe anything that reinforces their world view.

Feel free to demonstrate the evidence that you find credible and we will all form our own opinions I'm sure.

__________________
"Fear is the mind killer."
~Bene Gesserit

DeeJayH

Great post, and I would like to add


MMGW if BS
atleast its apocalyptic effects(affect?)
source: Online groups, social networks and online communities at me.com

__________________

Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian From the start of your interaction with Binary_Digit it has been "credible scientific debate." If you understand how scientific debate progresses, that implies peer reviewed research in the journal of the respective field. It's not a moving goal post. It's the same standard you will see applied throughout any number of debates on this matter.

The start was the truly stereotypical and telling brain fart that only scientist working for ExxonMobil had any issue with the theory of MMGW. Acknowledging such a clichéd generalization would have been a step in the direction or a real debate. As such was not the desire at the outset, but rather an attempt to dismiss the entire matter with truly lazy thinking and rationalization, I could care less about what Johnny Come Lately now wants to do. But I have suggested how he could achieve said in his own tidy little thread where anyone who wants to can revel in the ignorance of his initial claim and proceed to have truly progressive scientific debate spring forth from said. Chuckle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian Everyone makes their own call on what is credible. Some people actually understand the science and add knowledge to the field, some folks rely on trusted scientific authorities, and others might believe anything that reinforces their world view.

Oh thank you for declaring that oxymoron. I feel much better knowing that you have managed to come to grips with why I chose to mock the ExxonMobil idiocy and not really place much value or stock in all the attempts to recover from said that followed. But you keep waving your pom poms and cheering on this deeply thoughtful and highly progressive scientific debate you keep alluding to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian Feel free to demonstrate the evidence that you find credible and we will all form our own opinions I'm sure.

It is my opinion that anyone who claims only scientist working for ExxonMobil present any scientific debate about the theory of MMGW is not credible, intelligent or even very honest. Have you some kind of magic wand that will make such a stupid opening now come across as brilliant? No of course you don’t. But feel free to keep arguing the matter as if you do. With whom ever you can drum up to have it with it. I won’t be that person. The appeal of the initial circle jerk has not been enhanced by your contribution IMO.

Sir Loin

The use of bold faced Arial font size 10 is now a declaration of a lack of confidence and hides some sort of apocalyptic revelation scheme? And use of that text is going to prevent me from having conversations with more people who feel that way? Well I can only hope you are right.

Binary_Digit

That much is obvious, since you can't even support your viewpoint in this thread. I'm curious, why would you come to a debate forum and flat out refuse to debate?


Actually, I've been arguing against your viewpoint from the beginning:

"If there were not so many scientists that agree with the maverick weatherman"

Please try to keep up. I've asked you repeatedly to support this claim, and based on your repeated and pathetic attempts to dodge it, it's pretty clear that you can't.


If you don't know what credible scientific debate is, then maybe you should inform yourself before making assumptions. Here's a hint:

Random Scientist: "MMGW is wrong because of X."
All Other Scientists: "Actually, X is wrong because of Y."
Random Scientist: *** crickets ***

That is not a debate.

It's pretty bad when you can't even address the strawman you created for yourself, much less the argument I actually made:

The only "scientists" I'm aware of who flatly deny AGW are the ones working for ExxonMobile etc.

I admit this was hyperbole. It was supposed to be an obvious exaggeration, but I guess it was too subtle for you to recognize. Sorry about that. The point is still there though, so why don't you just prove it wrong? I think because you can't.