Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread
Matrix Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I'll repeat - "only a fool would assume a "user edited" project would be without bias." This is an important point whenever using Wikipedia - it is easily edited to reflect bias.
As humans, by definition, all display a degree of bias, the adjective is relative. The fact that you cry bias without providing any serious evidence is in itself a type of bias -- an assertion apparently based on unsupported opinion.

Uh, do you need someone to explain what is being written? Maybe one of the other members of the board can help you with this. Wikipedia is a "user edited" project. This causes the bias, because, as you point out, "humans...all display a degree of bias". Why do you keep arguing when you clearly agree with me?

Oh, wait "only a fool" - never mind.

Quote:Now the Wikipedia article on global warming, as I pointed out, presents a long list of evidence to support its statements. The fact that you challenge one statement in the GW entry (without providing any evidence to back up your view) looks suspiciously like knit-picking.

Uh, the bias in the article would extend to only showing biased or prejudiced "evidence" as well. Are you that naive as to not understand this, too?

Quote:If Wikipedia is so consistently unreliable, in your view, why haven't you commented on the Roe v Wade or Intelligent Design accusations made by Dr. Hanson? Could it be because you happen to agree with Wikipedia on these issues, but not on global warming?

You are assuming facts not in evidence - when did I say that Wikipedia is authoritative regarding R v W or ID? My blanket statement regarding Wikipedia covers all Wikipedia topics. Do you require more hand-holding on this, or do you understand it now?

Quote:
JohnWho Wrote:
Wikipedia Wrote:The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[19][20] is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era.
You are assuming that the Wikipedia article is factual since "It lists 124 notes and sources, along with listings of key scientific, educational and other links. It also provides a lengthy list of recommended reading."
You continue to evade the basic point. In any informed discussion, there is a presentation of information, backed up by sources. The sources provide support for the statements made. That is an essential aspect of any academic debate.

If you challenge the information and sources provided, it is up to you to point out specific instances of why you think so -- including an analysis of the sources.

A more important aspect is that one pays attention, something you aren't doing. We are going in circles. I'm not going to item by item refute a Wikipedia article that is full of bias. I have pointed you to enough alternative information to keep you busy for a long time. But, you seem to prefer to stand by your biased information.


Quote:
JohnWho Wrote:I'd like to assume you have the intellect to know that none of that means anything if it is not fact based.
You're attacking the person, not the argument.

You are ignoring the point. Perhaps what I'd like to assume is just wishful thinking on my part?



Quote:
JohnWho Wrote:I am not going to refute every false premise in that Wiki article - that has been done on a number of sites on the Net.
I have read your assertions, unbacked claims, ad-hominem arguments, personal insults and unsubstantiated opinions -- but so far I haven't see any refutations of global warming or anthing else on this thread.

So, come on, JohnWho, how about some substantive arguments? We wouldn't want people thinking you were intellectually bankrupt. Wink1

Actually, I believe you have just adequately described yourself. "Intellectually bankrupt" describes your behavior here very well.

Oh, and no that is not an attack, it is an observation.

In an earlier post, I said (Giving more of the quote):
Quote:I am not going to refute every false premise in that Wiki article - that has been done on a number of sites on the Net. In fact, this board has links to a ton of information that would help one with an open mind see the bias in the Wiki article.

(Bold mine.)

You could "bank" some knowledge by following the links mentioned on this board.

Then come back to this thread, demonstrating some of that new knowledge, and maybe we can guide you further on your path toward enlightenment, grasshopper.

(Edit - JohnL points out that you should come back to some of the other threads to further discuss AGW. That would make more sense.)
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
As promised, I have split this subject about the validity of Global Warming with Martix, and moved it to the Science Section.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
Does that mean that since it is no longer in the Economics section

we can't talk about banking anymore?

:lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
From page 4 you Matrix wrote this misleading crap:

Quote:Okay. Let's examine the story so far. First, you skipped the first two links, promising to return to them in due course. When you returned them, you presented garbage and claimed it was a rational argument -- to quote a prominent poster on Al-Jane's.


A chronology to refresh your memory:

Page 2,

Quote:I skimmed your 3 links.They post stupid arguments that strain credibility.The last link is all ad homeniums.No attempt to provide a rational counterpoint to the science presentation people are asked to sign the petition in support of it.

I have dealt with this crap since 1998 when I first had to deal with people (my brother) who bring up bogus arguments against it.I will show why your first 2 links are worthless crap soon.

Has it ever occurred to you WHY they created the list in the first place?

From your last link:

I went on to trash the bilge of the third link.

The next day and still on page 2 of this thread:

Quote:I have been reading through the first two links Matrix posted about the 31,000 petitions.

Gawd the shallow pond scum arguments are deceptive misleading and just plain stupid.The amazing ad homeniums and no rebuttals (meaning there are no rebuttals against the petitions statement itself) abound in the links.They do not even attempt to rebute the 2007 paper.They just call it garbage and think that is a rational argument.

They mock the selection criteria and think that alone invalidates the petitions statement (the one they never try to rebute).As I stated it is a stupid argument they make.When in abject ignorance.They fail to realize that most of the 2500 scientists in the IPCC panel are not climatologists at all.Many of them do not even have a science degree.

This is to show that I have posted a simple reaction to the content of the first 2 links.

Matrix's first reply:

Quote:Sorry for the delay in responding.

With your comments on the third link, you said that you had "skimmed through it" and would comment on the other two links in due course.

When I get more time, i will return to your "skimming" comments, which could explain your response. You failed to comment on the sources posted in that link. Attacking the messenger instead of the message?

As for the above comments on the first two links, I see a great many characterizations and name-calling, but no specifics. It's hard to direct you to scientific links that discuss certain issues, when you fail to specify the issues.

This where he brings up the illogical "Attacking the messenger instead of the message?" bromide.Nevermind that when YOU first posted the 3 links.That started this exciting sparring.

Here it is what you posted:

I quote you from page 1:

Quote:Just for the record, if a soliloquy means "talking to oneself", you can neither write one nor write one to me.

Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?

If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/0...lobal.html

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/

http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821...entists_eh

The relevant quote: If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

Nothing about INTERNAL links or that invented "Attacking the messenger instead of the message? " To cover the fact that you have no reasonable counterpoints I made against that third link.You NEVER have made a rational counterpoint.

Here is that original post from page 2.Where I blast the third link in detail:

"From your last link:"

Quote:yes, the report is 10 years old.

"Misleading since there is an UPDATED paper posted in 2007.So actually TWO reports have been published."

Quote: more than half the people who signed it, did so 10 years ago.

"Very good.But still over 12,000 NEW signees in last few years indicates a lot of people still do not consider AGW hypothesis robust."

Quote: the scientific paper was deceptively formatted to look like an official document of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. it was not.

"I have gone over this misleading crap with an actual member 2 years ago and he could not furnish the evidence that it was infringement on copyrights of the NAS.I know NAS posted a complaint about it.But never a legal violation.It is a bogus whining that needs to be dropped."

Quote: of the original 17,000 signers, dr. robinson admitted only 2100 signatories were actually from climate science and it was discovered non-credential signatories existed: perry mason, MASH dr honeycutt and more…

"Yes and he honestly posted that information on the website.He also stated that yes they get a few fakes.That they weed out.It has all been posted in the open.

Again it is a bogus argument.Or should I have to point out to you that neither James Hansen or Michael Mann has a climate science degree.Or Gavin Schmidt or Pierrehumbert or many other known AGW scientist believers.

Now what about those with actual climate degrees holders such as Richard Lindzen,Patrick Micheals,Reid Bryson,Roy Spencer,James Christy and many more.

How come they get vilified for their skepticism when they have actual educational expertise while Gavin,James and Michael who are celebrated do not?

You see where this heading?"

Quote:dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979.

"This is relevant because?"

Quote:writer dr. arthur robinson nor any of the co-authors were climate scientists.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

"Neither are James and Ray and Michael and Gavin and ........ "

Quote:dr. arthur robinson also does not believe in evolution. he believes in intelligent design.

"This is relevant because? Actually this is stupid.

What about Issac Newton who was ardent believer in Alchemy.What about Nicholas Copernicus who was a catholic priest?

Do I have to keep going to show how stupid it is to bring up irrelevant arguments against someone just because they believe in something unconnected to the subject at hand?"

Quote:dr. arthur robinson previously concluded that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful. he was wrong.

"How is this relevant to the subject at hand? Or should I have to bring up a whopper of an error Einstein made in early 1920's.

Again it is a stupid bogus and pointless attack.

How about the startling idea of attacking the actual subject at hand (GLOBAL WARMING!) and stick with it and leave out the stupid irrelevant nitpicking?"

Quote:dr. arthur robinson was forced to resign from the LINUS PAULING inst. of Sc + Med, his research labeled as “amateurish” and inadequate.

• dr. arthur robinson wrote 2 books on surviving nuclear war, noting that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”.
I tire of reading boneheaded irrelevant attacks.Since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.GLOBAL WARMING!

The link is full of B.S. since not a single time did they contest the papers that was published in 1997 and updated in 2007.Just deflecting criticisms of people.

What convinced you that this bonehead website was worth debunking the Oregon petition.

When it did nothing of the kind!

If this is all that link can bring up.Then you guys should give up.It is STUPID!"


Once more time to show that counterpoint shy Matrix posted 3 links with NO preconditions attached to it:

Quoting Matrix from page 1.The post that started it all:

Quote:Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?

If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/0...lobal.html

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/

http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821...entists_eh

But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against true-believer-ism.

red bolding mine

See the words in red.He calls the links "information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board..."

I have honestly posted a reply to the third link he posted.And matrix has been bullshitting me with evasive crap ever since.

You later complain that I never posted any detailed reply to the other two links.

True.But that was because I was awaiting for a counterpoint to the post I made against the third link.Since you never have.There are no good reasons for me to continue.Since you have shown that you will not provide a reasonable counterpoint to my criticisms.

Again to show that I explained why I did not.From page 3:

Quote:I did not make a specific post against the other two links.Because I was waiting for your breathtaking reply to my criticism of the one link I did specifically responded to in detail.

Nope you did not.So why should I waste my time tearing apart two more dumb petition criticisms?

You now have to put something on the table in defending that incredibly bad third link I laughed at.

Since you never did post a counterpoint post to my critical anti-third post.I have not proceeded with the other 2 links in detail.
Reply
From page 4.Matrix posted this obvious defense of ad homenium:

Quote:Your comments on the third link did not pertain to the sources cited by the messenger, but rather a critique of the messenger. As I recall, the messenger did not make any ad-hominem comments at all. His research pointed to some questions about the scientific credentials of one of the six-member staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Dr. Arthur Robinson.


Again to show that originally Matrix was attacking the 31,000 petition project:

From page 1,

Quote:Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?

If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/0...lobal.html

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/

http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821...entists_eh

But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against true-believer-ism.

The money quote:

Quote:Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?


He is calling it a FRAUD and HORSESHIT.Then he proceeds to post 3 links to back up his assertion. :oops:


Later on he complains atPage 4:

Quote:Your comments on the third link did not pertain to the sources cited by the messenger, but rather a critique of the messenger. As I recall, the messenger did not make any ad-hominem comments at all. His research pointed to some questions about the scientific credentials of one of the six-member staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Dr. Arthur Robinson.

Here is what the third link stated.From the start:

Quote:31,000 scientists eh?

DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS OF GLOBAL WARMING

a study was written in 1998 which was followed up by a petition apparently signed by over 31,000 ‘scientists’ to date. these 31,000 ‘scientists’ collectively argue against the idea that human activity is causing global warming. 31,000. sounds impressive eh?

The obvious ad homeniums.I quote them from the link:

Quote:dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979.

• writer dr. arthur robinson nor any of the co-authors were climate scientists.

• dr. arthur robinson also does not believe in evolution. he believes in intelligent design.

• dr. arthur robinson previously concluded that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful. he was wrong.

• dr. arthur robinson was forced to resign from the LINUS PAULING inst. of Sc + Med, his research labeled as “amateurish” and inadequate.

• dr. arthur robinson wrote 2 books on surviving nuclear war, noting that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”.

Now point out what AD Homeniums are from this link:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false."

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). red bolding my emphasis

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...minem.html

Person A (Dr. Seitz) makes claim X (initiating the petition project.With a statement in opposition to the Kyoto Treaty and to the AGW hypothesis)

Person B (B28821.from the third link) makes an attack on person A (Dr. Seitz) (dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979.)

Therefore A's (Dr Seitz) claim is false.

Attacking Dr. Seitz by bringing up an irrelevant claim that he was paid by a tobacco co.

Attacking Dr. Seitz with this misleading and dishonest statement: "by of the original 17,000 signers, dr. robinson admitted only 2100 signatories were actually from climate science and it was discovered non-credential signatories existed: perry mason, MASH dr honeycutt and more…"

In all cases the arguments were being presented against Dr. Seitz and also Dr. Robinson irrelevant connections to past activities.And then present that as proving that the Petition Project was not at all impressive.

I have already shown in my detailed rebuttal against the third link why they are bogus arguments.The obvious AD HOMENUIMS that leapt from the links page.

Here they are:

Keep in mind the first quoted section is dishonestly misleading.They did not bother to mention that in the petition project link.They explained that Perry Mason was indeed a credentialed signatory.That bogus names were weeded out quickly.

Quote:of the original 17,000 signers, dr. robinson admitted only 2100 signatories were actually from climate science and it was discovered non-credential signatories existed: perry mason, MASH dr honeycutt and more…

• dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979.

• writer dr. arthur robinson nor any of the co-authors were climate scientists.

• dr. arthur robinson also does not believe in evolution. he believes in intelligent design.

• dr. arthur robinson previously concluded that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful. he was wrong.

• dr. arthur robinson was forced to resign from the LINUS PAULING inst. of Sc + Med, his research labeled as “amateurish” and inadequate.

• dr. arthur robinson wrote 2 books on surviving nuclear war, noting that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”.

Rational people would have asked the obvious.What does that have to do with the petition project?

Now from the comment section found in the dumb third link.Matrix so excitedly posted:

Quote:• dr. arthur robinson previously concluded that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful. he was wrong.
• dr. arthur robinson was forced to resign from the LINUS PAULING inst. of Sc + Med, his research labeled as “amateurish” and inadequate.
Actually, Robinson was right about vitamin C (though he only discovered this while trying to support Pauling’s theories and while working with Pauling at the institute they co-founded). Pauling – behaving like an ideologue rather than a scientist – not only kicked Robinson out of the institute but also destroyed or co-opted and reframed all his research. This is just one more indication of how Pauling fell out of science and into ideological quackery (really quite a shame but, hey, it was his life!). In a twist that is more than ironic, Pauling died of cancer.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...uling.html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NrG7fgW0...&ct=result

Fifi_Lamour @ 07/20/08 10:55:34

:lol:
Reply
Gosh I posted the last 2 postings THREE DAYS ago.

He has been here at least twice and had an opportunity to reply.But he does not.So I guess that means I do not have to beat up the other stupid links that does not even claim that the Petition Project is a fraud.

But Matrix made that claim here:

Quote:Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?

If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/0...lobal.html

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/

http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821...entists_eh

But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against true-believer-ism.
red bolding my emphasis

You failed to prove fraud with those stupid links.They do not even talk about it. :oops:

"But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against true-believer-ism."

:lol:
Reply
LOL! You don't really expect me to respond to language (in bold) such as this:

sunsettommy Wrote:From page 4 you Matrix wrote this misleading crap:

Page 2,

I skimmed your 3 links.They post stupid arguments that strain credibility.

The last link is all ad homeniums.No attempt to provide a rational counterpoint to the science presentation people are asked to sign the petition in support of it.
Footnote: Despite your lengthy explanation, I fail to see how the third link was demonstative of an ad hominem argument. As far as I can see, there s no argument by the petitioners to be attacked. They simply signed a petition stating their religious beliefs when it comes to science. They are free to do so, obviously. The point of the third link, as I interpreted it, is to cast doubt on the credentials of some of those who signed the petition. After all, expressing a scientific opinion presupposes that those who do so have some semblance of credibility in the scientific community. Clearly, there are some serious doubts about the reputations of some of the signers. That, it seems, was the point of the blogger behind link three.

I'm not sure why you make such a point of this. If you look at the wealth of resources I posted on this thread, you will find hundreds of sources to reputable scientific organizations that support the AGW thesis, along with a debunking of the main arguments (some 52) attributable to AGW deniers.

You seem to think that there is only one side to this debate -- the one you advocate. Now, I have no idea whether you are a scientist with insight into this subject. If so, no doubt you will have published some papers that I could read. If not, then the discussion simply comes down to a "he says, she says" amateur debate with links to the real science.

Is that your idea of a debate -- or does your ideology demand that non-scientists come to the aid of professional scientists, with all the interpretive paraphenalia this assumes?

In any case, I have posted sufficient links to demonstrate that most professional scientists are convinced that AGW is a factor in climate change. When those who disagree publish their findings and join the global debate, we may benefit from their input. It would certainly be a step up to another level than the one we so often see these days by medical doctors who write fiction and claim it has something to do with real science and the scientific method.

So, spare me your beliefs, Sunny. If I wanted belief, I would go to church. S1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
Matrix foolishly writes:

Quote:Footnote: Despite your lengthy explanation, I fail to see how the third link was demonstative of an ad hominem argument.

and later this gem:

Quote:The point of the third link, as I interpreted it, is to cast doubt on the credentials of some of those who signed the petition.

It is obvious that you fail to see the obvious fallacy.It is really sad that you are going to deliberately make a fool of yourself to continue maintaining YOUR AGW religion.

Again I quote what a fallacy is:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."
emphasis mine

These are irrelevant facts:

Quote:• dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979.

• writer dr. arthur robinson nor any of the co-authors were climate scientists.

• dr. arthur robinson also does not believe in evolution. he believes in intelligent design.

• dr. arthur robinson previously concluded that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful. he was wrong.

• dr. arthur robinson was forced to resign from the LINUS PAULING inst. of Sc + Med, his research labeled as “amateurish” and inadequate.

• dr. arthur robinson wrote 2 books on surviving nuclear war, noting that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”.

The link started out with this and then proceed to attack just two people and their past scientific or consulting activities:

Quote:31,000 scientists eh?

DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS OF GLOBAL WARMING

a study was written in 1998 which was followed up by a petition apparently signed by over 31,000 ‘scientists’ to date. these 31,000 ‘scientists’ collectively argue against the idea that human activity is causing global warming. 31,000. sounds impressive eh?

The rest of the link is a collection of fallacies.Like I have stated several times now.It is a very stupid link.

Why are you still sticking with a link that does not even attempt to attack the two science papers and the petition itself.Just attack two people and call that a debunking.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Incredibly this guy ignorantly write this:

Quote:As far as I can see, there s no argument by the petitioners to be attacked. They simply signed a petition stating their religious beliefs when it comes to science.

From the petition website:

First the LETTER from Dr. Seitz.A quote:

Enclosed is the twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming",a petition in the form of a reply card,and a return onvelope."

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...etter.html

How can you miss the obvious that those 31,000 + petition signers are intelligent degreed people.Who can decide to read the 12 page review science paper and then fill out the petition form.It is ENTIRELY UP TO THEM!

There was indeed an argument to attack.If the bozos from the third link ever bothered to read through the website.They could have dropped the worthless fallacious attacks and concentrate on the underpinning 12 page review science paper instead. Wink1

Nope they never did. :lol:


Here is the 12 page review article:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...ticle.html

I have read last year.

When will you ever read it? S1

Here is the petition form:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...ition.html

Matrix goes on:

Quote:The point of the third link, as I interpreted it, is to cast doubt on the credentials of some of those who signed the petition.


What they posted are irrelevant facts.Because it does nothing about their participation on the PETITION PROJECT! The one your 3rd link barely mention at all. :lol: Just attack 2 guys and call that a rational debunking.

LOLOLOLOL.

When will you realize that it is very stupid to do that?

When will this ever sink into you?

Then you go on with this madness:

Quote:After all, expressing a scientific opinion presupposes that those who do so have some semblance of credibility in the scientific community. Clearly, there are some serious doubts about the reputations of some of the signers. That, it seems, was the point of the blogger behind link three.

ROFLMAO!

Your argument is absurd.Since the blokes from the 3rd link.Did not do any of the following:

Attack the 12 page review science paper.

Provide evidence that there was fraud being perpetrated.

Providing a credible explanation on why I and others should accept irrelevant fallacious arguments against 2 people.And think that debunks a huge list of petition signers.Who had merely read the underlying science paper presentation and VOLUNTARILY filled out the form and mailed it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I will answer the rest of your delusional post later.
Reply
Is it possible that AWG scientists are wrong? Certainly. Is it likely that they are wrong, given the peer-reviewed evidence from thousands of highly-trained scientists from around the world? Not if one accepts the scientific method as the only epistemological method.


Damnit, I did it again! I'm sorry Matrix, but I pushed the wrong button again and instead of quoting you, I edited your post. I must be losing my mind to alzheimers. :twisted: -John L
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
"M" a fighting withdrawal is interesting, but it should be well executed to be a joy to watch. However, let me just state this.

Enjoy your false sense of security as long as you can, because soon you will not be able to deny that we are sliding into a major cooling stage, and it is going to be for at least several decades too. I hope you enjoy al that cool, dry, weather. Wink1

[Image: 23vm6pw.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
As John L inadvertently deleted my original reply to your post, I'll try to reconstruct it for the record.

sunsettommy Wrote:Matrix foolishly writes:

Quote:Footnote: Despite your lengthy explanation, I fail to see how the third link was demonstative of an ad hominem argument.

and later this gem:

Quote:The point of the third link, as I interpreted it, is to cast doubt on the credentials of some of those who signed the petition.

It is obvious that you fail to see the obvious fallacy.It is really sad that you are going to deliberately make a fool of yourself to continue maintaining YOUR AGW religion.

Again I quote what a fallacy is:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."
emphasis mine
Thanks for the lesson, sunset. And in red, no less. However, if you had read what the poster on the third link actually said and posted, you might see my point.

To clarify, this is from the first link:

Quote:31,000 Scientists don’t believe in global warming?
At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn’t be done by poll, he explains. “The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them."
Science isn't done by unscientific, statistically invalid polling. But one thing Robinson and I can agree with is that the people who signed this thing are warm bodies. The headline could just as easily read:

89,928 scientists refuse to sign petition blasting Kyoto
If, as Robinson states, the names on the petition were not the result of a scientific poll, why would one bother to post such a petition in the first place? Would it serve to further the scientific debate on global warming? Or merely provide propaganda and publicity for the energy lobby?

The fact that the petition was misleading, to say the least, apparently including fake names, names of people who were dead and an unknown number of signers with only undergraduate degrees (posing as scientists), is a good reason to question the credentials of those who signed it.

But note, sunset, the credentials test as not used as a argument against any views expressed, merely as an example of why the petition was not a credible poll in the first place -- and therefore of no value scientifically.

You suggested that the third link merely attacked the messengers, not the message. You seemed to have overlooked this through link. After commenting on the scientific issues, the author ended on a salient note:

Quote:The scientific community has established an extensive peer-review process where well-qualified experts can assess and test the veracity of scientific claims. In atmospheric science, there are dozens of high-quality scientific journals with a long history of profound articles. An incorrect major scientific claim would be extremely difficult to maintain because scientists earn their reputations by developing better explanations of observed phenomena. We know of no major scientific articles since the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," that directly challenges this conclusion.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
(08-12-2008, 05:55 PM)scpg02 Wrote: Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

That is a dead link here is the updated one: http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/

Soon there will be a post at my forum where I expose at least three climate change trolls who make continous stupid comments that expose the shallow thinking that is a common trait of a troll.

Since their CAGW scam is in collapse they are much nastier than they used to be and show the TRUE side of their ugly beliefs.
Reply
(12-27-2012, 10:19 PM)sunsettommy Wrote:
(08-12-2008, 05:55 PM)scpg02 Wrote: Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

That is a dead link here is the updated one: http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/

Soon there will be a post at my forum where I expose at least three climate change trolls who make continous stupid comments that expose the shallow thinking that is a common trait of a troll.

Since their CAGW scam is in collapse they are much nastier than they used to be and show the TRUE side of their ugly beliefs.

Do I know any of them?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
(12-27-2012, 11:35 PM)John L Wrote:
(12-27-2012, 10:19 PM)sunsettommy Wrote:
(08-12-2008, 05:55 PM)scpg02 Wrote: Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

That is a dead link here is the updated one: http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/

Soon there will be a post at my forum where I expose at least three climate change trolls who make continous stupid comments that expose the shallow thinking that is a common trait of a troll.

Since their CAGW scam is in collapse they are much nastier than they used to be and show the TRUE side of their ugly beliefs.

Do I know any of them?

Matrix who will be featured and Buzz who at least tries to discuss stuff even if he is often wrong and gets unecessarily snotty in the process.No I do not plan to pick on Buzz as one to expose as it would be unfair to him but he might make honorable mention for other reasons.

The other two are from other forums who are even worse than Matrix who was bad enough.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,436 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 156,528 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,282 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 25,219 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,496 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 55,667 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,740 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,459 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,567 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,342 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)