New study in Nature shows pause is real

Micawber said:
Oh I admit that wholly. I don't live and breathe this as you seemingly do. Pun not intended. I don't know what it's about and probably won't read the abstract. I am pretty adept at perceiving obvious biases. You are a climate denial hack who has simply been forced to retreat to what you perceive as the new front in your unholy war. And you wage it on the internet along with a bunch of others like me who don't matter.

Notice fans, he refused to answer whether his core belief is as a practical matter distinguishable at all from a flat earth type denier.

And I'm sorry, there is no holocaust connection. That atrocity does not OWN the word "deny" such that it cannot be used, just as you don't own the word "pissbucket" despite the obvious similarity.
Click to expand...
Oh ok so now you are attacking me for actually knowing what I'm talking about, yes that's quite reprehensible!! You are just beyond belief quite frankly, Sailor was totally right about you.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Oh ok so now you are attacking me for actually knowing what I'm talking about, yes that's quite reprehensible!! You are just beyond belief quite frankly, Sailor was totally right about you.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Eureka! The most basic premise of mine since talking to you is that this is a matter beyond the ken of laity. That includes both of us. Honesty is a virtue, or don't you think so?

If you are an expert post YOUR peer reviewed scholarship published in a high impact scholarly journal with global climate science as the subject of your experiments and observations.

If you aren't, we stand on the same ground, except for a single important fact. I side with 99 percent of those with qualifications, and you stand with 1 percent.

I notice you sidestepped my question. I will take as an admission you do not think that there is any practical difference (policy relevant) between climate change denial and your claimed position.

Your agenda is therefore a matter of logical deduction and I have proven you are driven by an agenda based on fealty to monied interests with stake in dirty energy, science be damned.
 
Micawber said:
Eureka! The most basic premise of mine since talking to you is that this is a matter beyond the ken of laity. That includes both of us. Honesty is a virtue, or don't you think so?

If you are an expert post YOUR peer reviewed scholarship published in a high impact scholarly journal with global climate science as the subject of your experiments and observations.

If you aren't, we stand on the same ground, except for a single important fact. I side with 99 percent of those with qualifications, and you stand with 1 percent.

I notice you sidestepped my question. I will take as an admission you do not think that there is any practical difference (policy relevant) between climate change denial and your claimed position.

Your agenda is therefore a matter of logical deduction and I have proven you are driven by an agenda based on fealty to monied interests with stake in dirty energy, science be damned.
Click to expand...

Whenever PackD gets his ass handed to him he just starts to babble aimlessly. Like right now.
 
Milagro said:
Yes the man is an expert in psychobabble and verbal diarrhoea.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes sailor is a supergenius who argued for 5 months about whether or not some guy he didn't know and would never meet actually had a boat.

Real smart. Hitch your wagon to that star, Milagross

I could not help noticing you did not post your science, layman.
 
Micawber said:
Yes sailor is a supergenius who argued for 5 months about whether or not some guy he didn't know and would never meet actually had a boat.

Real smart. Hitch your wagon to that star, Milagross

I could not help noticing you did not post your science, layman.
Click to expand...
What's the point engaging retards like you and Gomer?

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Micawber said:
Yes sailor is a supergenius who argued for 5 months about whether or not some guy he didn't know and would never meet actually had a boat.

Real smart. Hitch your wagon to that star, Milagross

I could not help noticing you did not post your science, layman.
Click to expand...

Still fumbling there PackD. Obviously in your DNA.
 
Milagro said:
Ah yes, argumentum ad populum I believe.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/...pealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You really should inform yourself using your own citation. Hilarious.

There are basically four ways that this fallacy occurs and I am going to deal with each one separately:

Citing an opinion as authoritative
Citing people who aren’t actually experts
Using authority as a logical proof
Citing a small minority of experts when an opposing majority consensus exists


The fallacy for dummies page you use even uses the example of climate science deniers online and utilization of non expert experts. I'm surprised they did not put your name in it.
 
domer76 said:
It looks like its major contributor is some conservative wank named Hintze. Funny how it lists itself as a "charity" and thus is immune from providing a list of donors.
Click to expand...

What's really funny? Is the fact that you can count on the fascist liberal to attack the messenger when they can't debate the substance and the truth revealed.

Once more it must be pointed out that TRUTH does no cease to be truth simply because it is delivered by someone you hate. Truth is the same for everyone. If you want to debunk the information....simply do it....OR NOT, as usual.
 
Ralph said:
What's really funny? Is the fact that you can count on the fascist liberal to attack the messenger when they can't debate the substance and the truth revealed.

Once more it must be pointed out that TRUTH does no cease to be truth simply because it is delivered by someone you hate. Truth is the same for everyone. If you want to debunk the information....simply do it....OR NOT, as usual.
Click to expand...
They can't so they always play the man not the ball!!

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
What's the point engaging retards like you and Gomer?

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

lol

You poor, cherry-picking clod. You're all over the board on your cut-and-paste du jour. Which is it today, droolcup? Delta T of 1*, 1.5* or 1.8*? More? You've posted all three. Why to you fail to include the uncertainty in each? Because at least one has a Delta T of up to 2.8*?

You're a scientifically Dishonest Cunt, Nancy. You've been outed.
 
Ralph said:
What's really funny? Is the fact that you can count on the fascist liberal to attack the messenger when they can't debate the substance and the truth revealed.

Once more it must be pointed out that TRUTH does no cease

to be truth simply because it is delivered by someone you hate. Truth is the same for everyone. If you want to debunk the information....simply do it....OR NOT, as usual.
Click to expand...

Hey Ralphie. You sure disappeared fast when I challenged you to prove your positive claim that your book was the true word of your god. You made one lame attempt and failed miserably. What happened? Can't do it without employing your chronic circular reasoning?

Come on back, pally boy. I'll give you another chance.
 
domer76 said:
Hey Ralphie. You sure disappeared fast when I challenged you to prove your positive claim that your book was the true word of your god. You made one lame attempt and failed miserably. What happened? Can't do it without employing your chronic circular reasoning?

Come on back, pally boy. I'll give you another chance.
Click to expand...

The BOOK kicked your ass. If it were not so.....you would not constantly attempt to use the same internet shopping list that has been debunked ad nausem. I simply present the truth and move on.....why beat on a horse that was dispatched previously? LMAO

And of course we can always count on the fascist to DEFLECT in order to hide the fact of their ignorance. Thus far you have attempted to attack the messenger not the message (because there is no refutation of the truth), then you attempt to deflect on a debate where you were dispatched with ease previously. Alinsky 101. The godless has no answer for the God of Creation thus the deflection and beating on one's chest in defeat. Its best to remember when you attempt to engage in a battle of wits with the Holy Spirit the author of THE BOOK.....don't bring an empty chamber that's made obvious by your deflections. There is nothing more to debate YOUR ASS has been kicked many times previously. Its over. Time to move on......my time is valuable, clearly yours is not. :rolleyes:
 
domer76 said:
lol

You poor, cherry-picking clod. You're all over the board on your cut-and-paste du jour. Which is it today, droolcup? Delta T of 1*, 1.5* or 1.8*? More? You've posted all three. Why to you fail to include the uncertainty in each? Because at least one has a Delta T of up to 2.8*?

You're a scientifically Dishonest Cunt, Nancy. You've been outed.
Click to expand...
This poster is being ignored because he's a nasty cunt.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Scott Adams is the man!
19e631016b7050f7eee528a38689e6b8.jpg


Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top