Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

I think man made carbon emission is causing anthropogenic global warming.

  • Total voters
    14
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
This is by far the fastest I have seen anyone online being unable to come back with intelligent arguments and instead resort so fast to strawmans and trolling.
Click to expand...
poptech said:
You can't really be this slow?
Click to expand...
i bet your little website has the vast majority of peer-reviewed, publishing climatologists just shaking in their wee little boots.

i'm certain that they are hoping at this very moment that you stay on this pot website rather than destroy their decades in the making hoax.

:lol:

and i am marie of romania.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
These guys make Sophists look like higher life forms. They are not after the Science. They want the thug fight of Agenda.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
The link says 1999. I was only posting the peer-reviewed versions of the paper not the original non-peer-reviewed version.


Why do you keep lying? Quote and source one reputable site that claims the original paper had a NAS heading.

You are really embarrassing yourself.


Why are you lying that "surgeons" reviewed the paper when they did not?

Blogs are not peer-reviewed and thus scientifically irrelevant in response to a peer-reviewed paper. Surely you can find a peer-reviewed comment on the paper?
Click to expand...
ok perhaps the nas heading is the ONLY thing i got wrong

in january 1998 the pettition was sent out with study that wasnt peer reviewed that had an identical format to NAS

heres the 1998 study (we'll need this in a second)
http://webs.uvigo.es/esuarez/RNL/Petition Project.pdf

by robinsons own admission he copied the style

Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.'

and

Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format.

and during 1998 the NAS has the need to dissavow it

now the 1999 paper that you posted was not only irrelevant but its specious for you to pretend that its connected

not only was it "published" over a year and a half after

the 1999 study is not only different in format but its also got different content to the 1998 piece

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n2/p149-164/

now i have seen your performances on other forums so i do not expect you to give a fuck about this info but incase anyone else is reading its all there in black and white


and yeah the surgoen piece is as much a hack job as the rest of the debacle
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
Why are you changing the subject after I refuted you in extensive detail on climate change? Are you conceding defeat?
Click to expand...
hang on there big boy i'd check the order of the posts i had answered yours

now what do you expect me to sit silently like a good boy while you warm up your C+P folders

to that i say fuck you

you've spent year trying to argue your case in climate, scientific and sceptic forums and you've gotten nowehre

the fact that your here amongst the potheads your campaigning against shows your desperation to stay relevant and keep a view of importance on your feeble arse

im not going to waste my time giving it to you

and i know your not welcomed here

so congratualtions you silly silly kook you are the very first person here to make my ignore list

dont let the door hit you on the way out
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
These guys make Sophists look like higher life forms. They are not after the Science. They want the thug fight of Agenda.
Click to expand...
^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

That said, I like the recent article Cook has in the Age regarding the alarmist/denier bickering.

"I trust the integrity and compassion of these "deniers", and admire their courage and awesome perseverance."
A lot more civility than the "might makes right" mindset I see here!
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

That said, I like the recent article Cook has in the Age regarding the alarmist/denier bickering.

"I trust the integrity and compassion of these "deniers", and admire their courage and awesome perseverance."
A lot more civility than the "might makes right" mindset I see here!
Click to expand...
poptech has been banned from many differing forums, and sites over the last few year with good reason too
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ArcticGranite said:
^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

That said, I like the recent article Cook has in the Age regarding the alarmist/denier bickering.

"I trust the integrity and compassion of these "deniers", and admire their courage and awesome perseverance."
A lot more civility than the "might makes right" mindset I see here!
Click to expand...
Logically, the bolded is the classic argumentum ad hominem, even though it is positive in its sentiment. cn
 
poptech

poptech

Member
ginjawarrior said:
ok perhaps the nas heading is the ONLY thing i got wrong
Click to expand...
No you got just about everything wrong.

ginjawarrior said:
in january 1998 the pettition was sent out with study that wasnt peer reviewed that had an identical format to NAS

heres the 1998 study (we'll need this in a second)
http://webs.uvigo.es/esuarez/RNL/Petition Project.pdf

by robinsons own admission he copied the style

Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.'
Click to expand...
No it was not identical. I already stated that Robinson admitted to copying the style but you cropped his full comment again,

"Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal." [...]

"The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more."
Click to expand...
What you are effectively arguing is that the scientists complaining to the NAS about the paper were absolutely incompetent and could not recognize a paper that explicitly said it was from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute".

ginjawarrior said:
Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format.
Click to expand...
The only thing quoted is "it was stupid" so we do not know what his actual statement was but you still cropped it,

Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.
Click to expand...
Why can you not provide the entire context?

ginjawarrior said:
and during 1998 the NAS has the need to dissavow it
Click to expand...
This was refuted by Dr. Robinson,

...the National Academy of Sciences has issued a statement about our project. Apparently, Sherwood Row-land convinced a majority on the governing council to put out a statement that the petition project is not an NAS activity. No one thought that it was an NAS activity, but Rowland thinks he can get some negative political mileage out of this disclaimer.

The enviros must smear the project. They are being drowned in the signatures of scientists who oppose the global warming mania. Without their perceived consensus, years of enviro preparations and many billions of dollars in propaganda designed to seize control of the world's energy supplies and turn down the flow of energy to industry, technology, and individuals may be lost.
Click to expand...
ginjawarrior said:
now the 1999 paper that you posted was not only irrelevant but its specious for you to pretend that its connected

not only was it "published" over a year and a half after

the 1999 study is not only different in format but its also got different content to the 1998 piece

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n2/p149-164/
Click to expand...
This is a strawman argument as I made no claim that it was the same exact paper. When I cited it in post #90 it was to correct your misinformation that the 2007 paper was the same as the older one. I am well aware that they circulated a pre-published version of the paper in 1998 with the petition. It is very relevant to note that this was later submitted to and pass peer-review. It is quite normal for a paper to change before final publication due to the peer-review process. It is also relevant since they circulated the peer-reviewed version of the paper with the petition after it was published.

ginjawarrior said:
now i have seen your performances on other forums so i do not expect you to give a fuck about this info but incase anyone else is reading its all there in black and white
Click to expand...
Anyone can go read through my posts and see the numerous corrections to your misinformation that I have posted. It has been demonstrated extensively here that you have no idea what you are talking about.

ginjawarrior said:
and yeah the surgoen piece is as much a hack job as the rest of the debacle
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about as no one has presented anything here written by a surgeon.
 
poptech

poptech

Member
ginjawarrior said:
you've spent year trying to argue your case in climate, scientific and sceptic forums and you've gotten nowehre
Click to expand...
How do you know that? The increasing web hits to the list say otherwise.

ginjawarrior said:
the fact that your here amongst the potheads your campaigning against shows your desperation to stay relevant and keep a view of importance on your feeble arse

im not going to waste my time giving it to you

and i know your not welcomed here

so congratualtions you silly silly kook you are the very first person here to make my ignore list

dont let the door hit you on the way out
Click to expand...
The only reason I am here is because of the misinformation you stated about my list, of which I have corrected. I am well aware you are incapable of debating me and you putting me on the ignore list is proof of this.
 
poptech

poptech

Member
ArcticGranite said:
^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
Click to expand...
You can find a more detailed analysis of my censorship at Skeptical Science here,

Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech

They were unable to debate me and had to resort to censorship as they cannot have anyone reading my arguments.
 
poptech

poptech

Member
Notice he cannot name them. How come no one arguing against me can actually support their arguments? Instead they make bullshit allegations that they cannot back up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top