Last Chance for Warmer to Explain AGW Theory

[Crick]

Wrong again. I was wishing him luck dealing with you.

 

[SSDD]

Wrong again. I was wishing him luck dealing with you.

Yeah....guess it's tough when people keep asking for support for your hypothesis that you can't provide....must get tiring. And asking questions you can't answer...must be a bitch...speaking of questions you can't answer...Consider PV=nRT.....how can you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)

 

[Youch]

Of course literature is rife with "studies" that support AGW. And no, they are not restricted to the federal grant establishment. They are supported and believed by people who loathe their own species and blame them for, first it was man-made-global-warming, then just global warming, then climate change, now AGW and most recently "climate chaos" is the device to blame humans whether it is getting colder or hotter. But that was not the point I was making.

No need to make any further points. All you have is conspiracy theories and links to conspiracy theories. You've certainly made that point. Instead of relying the "avalanche o' crap" tactic and the "because I feel it's true" tactic favored by deniers everywhere, maybe you could act rationally. Instead of rambling, clearly state a single point and clearly back it up, with hard data instead of opinion pieces.

Recognize the weakness of your position. We don't need to convince you. The world has defined you and your cult as irrelevant, and the science has moved on without you. If you want to be relevant, something more than a voice on a message board, you'll need some hard data to back up your claims.

Red Herring.....

And perhaps read/listen to the links I submitted with the intent to understand. Naw, intolerance seeks not the light of day.

You speak for the world and dismiss, typically intolerantly so, and point made by those who don't by into the hoax. You talk in terms of "we"....who is "we", you got a mouse in your pocket?

You tell me what I need to do (provide hard data) without doing it yourself. Isn't that odd. As I mentioned to some other poster whose sole source of "proof" has been discredited, the GW crowd insists their position it true based on false data they cannot prove, while not even attempting at real dialog with opposing views. This progressive labeling "deniers" is meant to dismiss and squelch debate. Just like those who attempt to defend liberalism, whey simply cannot do it with widely acceptable facts.

 

[Youch]

If by interesting, you mean diverse, apolitical and common, I will agree.

Diverse and apolitical?!?!? A bad joke.

Perhaps you disagree because you failed to read and understand.

 

[Crick]

I give you links to more than a dozen science journals. You give us links to nothing but conservative and Christian blogs. I read and I understood and what I understood is that you're grossly prejudiced and appear to have no interest whatsoever in objective information.

 

[Youch]

Youch, you instantly resorted to kook conspiracy theories, which instantly revealed you as a brainwashed cult parrot. If you want us to pay attention to you, you'll need to show us some new and original deranged propaganda from your cult. The old stuff that you're repeating is simply too boring to bother with.

You're the one who declared all the data was a forgery. That is, you led off with an unsupported conspiracy theory. So back up your conspiracy theory. Whining about how unfair it is that I pointed out you're relying on conspiracy theories is not impressive. You're just being evasive and emotional.

So, you can back up your claims, or you can continue to tell everyone that you refuse to back up your claims, and everyone is required to take your unsupported claims at face value, otherwise you'll pout at them. I think we all know which route you're going to take.

Mooth,

I provided many links and many cogent arguments. And before you disappeared from the debate, all you provided were emotional and shallow spit balls. Please read, with the intent to understand, the words I've typed and the links I've provided. My desire is, unlike this crick kid, that you actually read and engage in actual debate.

Oh, and this childish nonsense that what I've provided is "conspiracy theory" (again, a dismissive tactic of the Left) while you've provided nothing of your own, is a dog that don't hunt. Please try again.

I give you links to more than a dozen science journals. You give us links to nothing but conservative and Christian blogs. I read and I understood and what I understood is that you're grossly prejudiced and appear to have no interest whatsoever in objective information.

I'm not sure a poster can discredit himself anymore than you just did. Knowing you don't understand, let me explain:

1. You say you provided dozens of links, when you only provided one from the IPCC.

2. You say I only provided links to conservative and Christian blogs (as if that in any way discredits the source and counter-argument to the left, which it does not), but in fact I provided many links, PURPOSESLY SO, that are from left-leaning media. Of course, you would have to have read them, or understood things like bias, to understand that.

3. You spew that I am "grossly prejudice" when you rely on a single source and I provide, PURPOSELY, a random smattering of multiple sources. Grossly? That betrays an emotion that matters not to climate.

4. You have not, not once, actually debated the point's I've provided, not once disproved them, and not once provided your own point of view. IPCC and emotion is all you've provided in this thread. Read it.

So, we learned you lie (see item #1 above) and that you are intolerant of views that differ than your own. Matters not to me. I'm here to debate the issue. You seem to be here to debate posters.

Let's get this back on track, as I'm not interested in you, but instead only the issue. Can you REFUTE or DISPUTE ANY of the information I've provided? (of course not) If so, DO so.

 

[Crick]

Links? Your collection of right wing blogs and YEC Christian sites?!?!? For god's sake, this was at least INTENDED to be a technical discussion of science matters; not Rush Limbaugh and James Taylor farting in harmony.

 

[Youch]

Links? Your collection of right wing blogs and YEC Christian sites?!?!? For god's sake, this was at least INTENDED to be a technical discussion of science matters; not Rush Limbaugh and James Taylor farting in harmony.

The Washington Times, NY Post and the DailyMail are left leaning. And you didn't even read them. I think you glanced at the links, opened none, and reverted back to emotional sword-fighting with a poster rather that make any attempt to debate the issues.

And you still have not engaged in debate. AT ALL. In fact, with every new post you keep making my point.

Further, regarding the rest.....that you blow-off sources that your prejudices dismiss ignores large swaths of information (that you are obviously not interested in) and betrays an incredible intolerance. You are the epitome of the progressive believer.

Sorry Crick, perhaps because I'm new here, but I just realized you are not someone worthy of debate. You got nuttin' but mule fritters.

Onward and upward....

 

[Crick]

How much attention did you pay to the more than one dozen peer reviewed studies to which I linked? No blogs. No politics. No daily news. No religious sites. Just science.

You can talk some of the talk, but in reality, you're the one not worth debating

 

[Youch]

How much attention did you pay to the more than one dozen peer reviewed studies to which I linked? No blogs. No politics. No daily news. No religious sites. Just science.

You can talk some of the talk, but in reality, you're the one not worth debating

You prove you don't read. I already told you the IPCC has no credibility. And you have provided ZERO else in this thread. Are you not paying attention?? Seems not, which proves my point....I'll move on to folks that are paying attention.

I attempt to engage in debate, by debating, and you've not stepped up to the repeated challenge. The wider audience will decide worthiness.

 

[Crick]

You think I care what you think of the IPCC? Got a PhD? Are you a climate researcher? No and no. Thus your opinion is heavily outweighed by the opinions of those who do.

 

[Youch]

You think I care what you think of the IPCC? Got a PhD? Are you a climate researcher? No and no. Thus your opinion is heavily outweighed by the opinions of those who do.

Exactly, that is the emotional brush-off I expected.

I argued against the IPCC, provided very credible sources of scientists that have also argued against the IPCC, and rather than discuss those points, rather than debate the issue, rather than refute my contention, all you have done since I pierced your veil is debate me and not the issue. It is all you got. You've not actually refuted a single post I've made, and not refuted a single source I've provided. Why? Cuz you can't. If you could have, you would have. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Funny, how you assume to know my education level when you can't even debate an issue on the specificities without relying on a single (discredited) source.

Okay Crick, I've given you enough attention. Sorry man, gotta move on....

 

[Crick]

You've done no such thing. You've provided crap for reference.

If you want to debate the validity of the IPCC, come to the table with some real reference material. Just as I don't find you qualified to brush them off, neither do I find our references. Hit the journals. Show us what you've REALLY got.

 

[Crick]

PS: are claiming to be a PhD climate researcher? Cause I find it a little surprising that a PhD climate researcher (or anyone with more than a high school diploma) would be quoting the Washington Times, the Daily Caller, the Conservative News and Forbes when making a climate argument.