1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaNo, you just see a 'debate' as someone agreeing with you! That's not a debate wonky, that's a mutual admiration society. A debate is something entirely different. But I guess that's how you cope with a counter argument: you just re-classify it as a "rant".
It's an admission that you are too spitefully and intentionally ignorant to actually debate. You rant continuously and post other rants as your evidence. Nothing but a broken record.
Look up "rant" and "debate" in the dictionary, read and try to understand it, then come back.
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovYou need to look up "credible," "unbiased," and "peer reviewed" before you even consider claiming that those articles you posted constitute evidence for a legitimate debate.
No, you just see a 'debate' as someone agreeing with you! That's not a debate wonky, that's a mutual admiration society. A debate is something entirely different. But I guess that's how you cope with a counter argument: you just re-classify it as a "rant".
Look up "rant" and "debate" in the dictionary, read and try to understand it, then come back.
Again, you are nothing but a broken record; nobody cares about your spiteful ignorance any more. Even your little disciples have abandoned you. Nobody cares about listening to broken records.
Originally posted by wittywonkaYou see there you go again... you just can't handle a good debate or strong opposition. You simply dismiss all evidence against your view as not valid and call it a "rant" instead. Easy. But you lose!
You need to look up "credible," "unbiased," and "peer reviewed" before you even consider claiming that those articles you posted constitute evidence for a legitimate debate.
Again, you are nothing but a broken record; nobody cares about your spiteful ignorance any more. Even your little disciples have abandoned you. Nobody cares about listening to broken records.
Originally posted by SpastiGovhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm - No Sun "link" to climate change
You see there you go again... you just can't handle a good debate or strong opposition. You simply dismiss all evidence against your view as not valid and call it a "rant" instead. Easy. But you lose!
Originally posted by EsotericActually my one carries more credibility because it is further backed up by this one:
Opinion v Science. A tacky website for “bloggers” v the BBC. Tell me which one carries more credibility?
"Dr. David Whitehouse argues that the no sun-link article lauded by the BBC recently is deeply flawed"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/15/do1508.xml
Whereas your site is nothing but a knee-jerk panic attack following the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that demolished agw and put the blame for earth's climate back on the sun where it belongs!
Originally posted by SpastiGovNo. There you go again.
You see there you go again... you just can't handle a good debate or strong opposition. You simply dismiss all evidence against your view as not valid and call it a "rant" instead. Easy. But you lose!
Each of your articles was dismissed due to a lack of credibility or an apparent bias. Quit your "recorded" line about dismissing articles based on perspective.
I am wasting my time, so I only need point out the obvious once more. Nobody cares any longer, not even those who support your viewpoint. You have destroyed the debate by ranting constantly and not responding to criticism or opposing articles. Just like a broken record.
Originally posted by SpastiGov...which itself has been debunked... look
Whereas your site is nothing but a knee-jerk panic attack following the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that demolished agw and put the blame for earth's climate back on the sun where it belongs!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Originally posted by SpastiGovSo just because the temperature of one town in the US has gone down then you think this debunks Global Warming?
You guys really need to swat up!
Check out this site, esp the part "Temperature Record of the Week":
http://www.co2science.org/
"Debating" with you is like debating with a Muppet.
Originally posted by SpastiGovYour "so what" argument...
-Natural variability has always occurred, and there is a mountain of evidence to say that it is doing so now, as opposed to AGW theory which is based entirely upon assumption, conjecture and wooley-headed logic. Only a fool would think natural variability plays no part in earth's climate (ergo agryson is a fool because he thinks, and I quote, "there's no evidence to say that it is doing so now" ).
well, all of that is actually quite important, and the extent of its effects is exactly what we've been posting for quite some time.
The sun...
See the consensus thread, page seven I think, a link is given to new scientist which provides papers debunking that old chestnut. As do the few articles posted recently on this thread.
"The other theory is neither credible or viable"...
Well, the body of research you've been ignoring (and apparently not even reading) puts paid to that little statement.
"Todays climate is not the function of man's industrial activity"
That's a statement, in fact it's what all the evidence actually shows. (Once more, you seem not to have read any of the evidence posted. I did with yours, and gave two detailed breakdowns of their shortcomings, without the use of unsupported statements)
That the sun drives the earths climate is not in question, that it drives the current changes is, and all the data consistently shows that the answer tot hat question is that the sun is not driving the changes to the same degree as industrial activity.
Conjecture is required in any theory, supporting evidence bolsters the conjecture. Conjecture is not in and of itself a bad thing. Any scientific principle uses it.
"AGW is a political issue that masquerades as science"
AGW is science which happens to be a political issue, the difference being that we end up with hacks like you making politically and socially motivated claims, when it is purely the scientific claims we should be considering. (Hence my continual insistence on relying on data rather than neo-con bloggers)
I have no blind faith in Al Gore, I see him as a politician, not a scientist, and as I said above, and on many occasions before, I am only concerned with the science.
Now I get to the segment I quoted from you. Now, read my posts again... see where you've missed the context? I have always maintained that it is the change in natural patterns which is at question, not the role of the sun. The climate in its natural state is driven by many things. The change in climate which we are now seeing is not, as the "mountain of evidence" which we have provided attests to.
AGW theory is not based entirely upon assumption, conjecture or wooly headed logic, but on an initial question, approached scientifically and supported by the data.
As for your confusion between a rant and a debate.
Debate: "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints"
Rant: "to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave"
Both taken from dictionary.com.
One is a discussion and consideration of all parameters, the other someone getting up on a soapbox and saying things like "so what" when presented with an argument.
Since you obviously don't read any of our supporting material, continue to use arguments which have been debunked before and are generally very rude, it is safe to refer to your tirades as a "rant"
Since we've read your supporting material, commented on it (ad nauseum... literally) and offered counter points, it seems we are teh ones engaged in debate.
Originally posted by SpastiGovOh, and global warming is based on global trends, not local ones. It is in fact this variability in temperatures which drives weather systems, the more varied the temperatures, the more violent the weather systems.
You guys really need to swat up!
Check out this site, esp the part "Temperature Record of the Week":
http://www.co2science.org/