Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

"I can point you to over 800 published peer reviewd papers that question AGW theory. How many, in favor of AGW do you think you can provide? John Kerry claimed thousands. Do you believe him?"

And I can point out that most, if not all of those question certain aspects of the research, not the fact of AGW altogether. You act exactly like those creationists (who, by the way, are also right wing extremists), using tactics like quote mining and posting references that make it appear that they have sicence on their side because they believe most people simply won't bother to check them. It's a well known tactic, Palerider. I can also cite many instances where people like Watt have made claims on a particular bit of research, and when it was followed up, the author of the research, it turns out, is oftentimes very surprised that his/her reserarch was used to try to refute AGW. You guys need new material, because this tactic obviously is not working for you.

 

[orogenicman]

"The assertion that NOAA, NASA, and the international equivalents of those organizations are somehow involved in a gigantic conspiracy to enslave us all to a Marxist world government is totally preposterous. Surely, you don't subscribe to that nonsense?"

Yeah, I put that right up there with the Apollo moon landings hoax. nonsense.

 

[orogenicman]

OGM - "So when you are working in your biochemistry lab and your bunson burner mysteriously goes out, did "god did it" come to mind?"

Palerider - Spoken like a pissy liberal. You have lost. You can produce no hard observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man's activites and the changing cliamte. Now get your panties out of a wad and deal with it."

Notice how he didn't actually address the question of why "God did it" doesn't enter into scientific research, but instead attacked me personally, and then rather amusingly claimed victory while simulataneously tryng to divert attention away from the question at hand. Well, I just think that is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[palerider]

And I can point out that most, if not all of those question certain aspects of the research, not the fact of AGW altogether. You act exactly like those creationists (who, by the way, are also right wing extremists), using tactics like quote mining and posting references that make it appear that they have sicence on their side because they believe most people simply won't bother to check them. It's a well known tactic, Palerider. I can also cite many instances where people like Watt have made claims on a particular bit of research, and when it was followed up, the author of the research, it turns out, is oftentimes very surprised that his/her reserarch was used to try to refute AGW. You guys need new material, because this tactic obviously is not working for you.

Logical fallacy upon logical fallacy upon logical fallacy.

Either you can support your claims with hard observed evidence or you can not. By now, it is evident that you can not.

 

[orogenicman]

"I have provided petitions that include tens of thousands of scientists signatures who don't buy into the agw hypothesis, over 9,000 phDs."

What petitions, where? I've seen some of those petitions elsewhere, and many of those on the lists weren't scientists at all, and some were included without their permission. This is old hat, Palerider.

 

[palerider]

Notice how he didn't actually address the question of why "God did it" doesn't enter into scientific research, but instead attacked me personally, and then rather amusingly claimed victory while simulataneously tryng to divert attention away from the question at hand. Well, I just think that is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

If the bunsen burner goes out (i rarely use a bunsen burner) I look for a rational, testable, repeatable reason that doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics if I need to know why. I don't jump on the bandwagon of some crackpot who proposes a hypothesis that lacks any hard observed evidence in support.

 

[orogenicman]

"You realize don't you, that that graph is the product of a computer simulation and not observed data?"

That graph was compiled from data collected from the time period in which it covers. Was a computer used to plot that graph? Almost certainly. Yo do know how to plot graphs on a computer, right? Or do you have an aversion to using computers except to post right wing propaganda?

 

[GenSeneca]

Scientists are not politicians, but they are increasingly being forced to play the politician by a relatively small group of politically driven people who clearly have an agenda, and that is to derail all research and funding into global warming, and to derail any efforts to find solutions. And they do so because that is what their minders in the petroleum, coal, and chemical industries (and make no mistake, these industries are behind these efforts) wants them to do.

Nice conspiracy theory...

Do you honestly expect scientists to show respect to people who attack their every word, their every effort to find facts, present them in a peer-reivewed fashion, and offer solutions, and even attack them as individuals?

That is precisely how warmers treat any scientist whose findings challenge AGW.... In fact, you did so in the previous sentence by accusing them of being part of a massive conspiracy!

 

[palerider]

What petitions, where? I've seen some of those petitions elsewhere, and many of those on the lists weren't scientists at all, and some were included without their permission. This is old hat, Palerider.

Here is one. Have yourself a logical fallacy wet dream complaining about it.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Keep in mind that unless you can provide some hard evidence that fraud is involved, your complaints represent just another logical fallacy.

 

[orogenicman]

"I wondered how long before you drug out a hockey stick. I guess it is time to stick a fork in you. When you drag out the hockey stick, you are done."

That's pretty amusing, considering that the argument about the hockey stick was based on claims of faulty data. When it was pointed out that one can use other data not used in the original hockey stick to come up with an identical hockey stick, the conversation from the other side, interestingly, fell silent.

 

[orogenicman]

"Just as I thought.... You do consider any form of AGW scrutiny to be done out of stupidity and/or an anti-science position. That's a shame since it was you who claimed there could be intelligent debate on the topic but all you have to offer are more fallacious arguments delivered with utter contempt for anyone who would disagree. "

Even scientists within the field of climate change very frequently question their own data as well as their own results and the data and results of others. It happens every day. There is a process for doing that. It's called peer review.

 

[orogenicman]

"Do you believe we are alone in the universe? Do you believe that no advanced civilizations exist that might seed likely worlds?"

So you are saying that all life on Earth is the result of some alien experiment? Ok, I'll bite. Who are these aliens, and who "created" them?

 

[orogenicman]

"I don't need to explain the warming because it happened long before man could have possibly been responsible."

Oh really? Man did not exist when this happened?

How old do you think the world is, Palerider? 4.56 billion years? 100 million? 10,000? How old? Do you believe in Biship Uusher's timeline?

 

[orogenicman]

"Yes it is. When you put forward a theory that violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, it is enough to point out that you don't know what you are talking about."

Well, that takes my breath away. Do realize that your buddies working on ID don't believe that the laws of thermodynamics are real, and have made arguments against them? And yet here you are, someone who supports ID claiming that AGW violates those same laws your buddies don't believe in.

 

[GenSeneca]

There is a process for doing that. It's called peer review.

True or False:

The only people who can legitimately scrutinize AGW (without being declared stupid/anti-science) are scientists participating in the peer review process.