^^ See what I mean, IanC ? Exactly what I'm talking about. A concerted effort to shut down the dialogue.
Surely you're not trying to convince me that the skeptical side in this argument are the ones trying to close down the debate?
I don't know about "convincing" anyone of anything around here. I simply pointed to an example of the absolutism I was talking about.
I have repeatedly tried to civilly discuss the evidence on many occasions only to have the warmists side shut me down with insults and deflection.
Those would be fallacies too. But I'm talking about absolutism. By which I mean "here's what I believe, and that's the final word and that's all there is to it, now shut up and furthermore"
That said, I think many or most come here for the sandbox insults and banter, and I wouldn't want to deny them of their fun.
I think so too. But it doesn't resolve anything.
That DEFINES the AGW supporters to a "T". Thank you for making that so crystal clear!
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Come up with anything from that thread months ago where you made up shit that I said and then couldn't find it?
![]()
Should I, what, check back in another year?
See what I mean IanC ? Ya can't dialogue with these types.
It's easy to point fingers at transgressions. Can you point me to some of your posts where you building a case to support a position? I have no background on you to judge your style or put things into context.
I don't have a "position" -- in that, as noted both here and in that thread linked above I don't think we have the perspective to speak in absolutes and it would be arrogant to do so. And as you see from the reference above, not only do the absolutists think they have all the answers, they misrepresent other people's positions to prop up their own arrogance.
However I most definitely do have a position on creepoids who can only argue from blanket generalizations based on strawmen. You can probably guess what it is.