Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

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

  • Total voters
    14
poptech said:
Fact: you cannot debate the facts and instead resort to ad hominem, strawman and red herring arguments.

Now,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

You made nonsensical statements that you cannot back up. Why would you do such things?
Click to expand...

since you keep reposting the same thing, i am just reporting it as spam now.

idiot.
 
You have yet to actually present a position of mine that is not a strawman argument.

Now,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

You made nonsensical statements that you cannot back up. Why are you so afraid to support your arguments? I can support all of mine.
 
poptech said:
You have yet to actually present a position of mine that is not a strawman argument.

Now,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?

You made nonsensical statements that you cannot back up. Why are you so afraid to support your arguments? I can support all of mine.
Click to expand...

reported as spam.
 
Why can you not debate the facts UncleBuck? Why can you not support any of your nonsensical arguments? Everyone reading this can clearly see you failed.

Pure irony, the spammer, reporting spam.
 
poptech said:
Hillarious, the ad hominem spammer reporting someone else because they cannot support their arguments.
Click to expand...

and so begins your meltdown. guess we'll just add this to the collection.

as i've already said, i can easily back up everything i say, but i'm not going to. there is no need.*

talking to a dismal halfwit like you about climate change is like talking to a bible thumper about evolution, there is no point.

have fun burning out, poptart.
 
UncleBuck said:
you still haven't explained to me what property it is about cannabis that makes people want to smoke crack, poptart.
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
what i want to hear now is for you to explain to all of us the retarded process you went through that ended with you concluding that cannabis has a magical physical property such that it leaves the user wanting to smoke crack.
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
so go ahead now and please tell me what specific physical property of cannabis makes people want to smoke crack. that is another theory you stand behind, and i am more than interested in the process that led you to such a retarded conclusion.
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
but thanks for letting us know that you are too much of an inflamed vagina to take us through the indubitably comical pathway of unscience that ended with you concluding that cannabis has a physical property such that it will make you do crack.
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
and so when you advertise on your (incredibly shitty and amateur) website the theory that cannabis is a gateway drug, you are advertising your own inability to deal in fact and science.
Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:
hey poptart, i made a thread where we can discuss some of your other "scientific" beliefs :lol:

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/608168-pop-tarts-gateway-effect.html
Click to expand...

poptech said:
Why can you not debate the facts UncleBuck? Why can you not support any of your nonsensical arguments? Everyone reading this can clearly see you failed.

Pure irony, the spammer, reporting spam.
Click to expand...

there's some irony here, alright.
 
UncleBuck said:
and so begins your meltdown. guess we'll just add this to the collection.

as i've already said, i can easily back up everything i say, but i'm not going to. there is no need.*

talking to a dismal halfwit like you about climate change is like talking to a bible thumper about evolution, there is no point.

have fun burning out, poptart.
Click to expand...
You failing to support your arguments has nothing to do with me.

You cannot back ANYTHING up. You cannot even provide the following and just spew ad hominems,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?
 
poptech said:
I went back and reported all your actual spam. Too bad you cannot actually debate.
Click to expand...

there's nothing to debate. every single scientific body of any repute in the entire world has accepted climate change since 2007. every single last one.

the debate is dead. deader than lyndon b. johnson.

and your other anti-science beliefs discredit your tenuous understanding of science.
 
poptech said:
You failing to support your arguments has nothing to do with me.

You cannot back ANYTHING up. You cannot even provide the following and just spew ad hominems,

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

2. Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Surely you can find one?
Click to expand...

reported as spam.
 
UncleBuck said:
there's nothing to debate. every single scientific body of any repute in the entire world has accepted climate change since 2007. every single last one.
Click to expand...
How many scientists is that?

I am well aware they all accept "climate change", everyone believes the climate changes.
 
Why can you not answer simple questions?

How many scientists? 10, 100....?

This is getting rather embarrassing for you as it is clear you are used to throwing around bullshit statements you cannot back up. Why are you so uneducated on this issue?
 
poptech said:
Why can you not answer simple questions?

How many scientists? 10, 100....?

This is getting rather embarrassing for you as it is clear you are used to throwing around bullshit statements you cannot back up. Why are you so uneducated on this issue?
Click to expand...

i most certainly can back up my statement that every single scientific body of any standing accepts climate change.

in fact, why don't you go ahead and disprove it, since it's so un-back-up-able. i mean, you're so educated, right poptart?

about to start reporting as spam this new attempt of yours to dive into irrelevancy.
 
I've already proven that your statement in relation to scientific organizations is meaningless as it does not represent the membership bodies.

Policy statements release by the council members or signed by just the president of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than the handful of members in the council or the president. It is meaningful in that those few scientists support such statements. It is meaningless to imply that the membership bodies of these scientific organizations (which never approved such statements) can be used in support of these statements. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of the membership's position in relation to the organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

The difference is a handful of scientists vs the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Now, please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use the membership bodies as proof of consensus.
 
poptech said:
I've already proven that your statement in relation to scientific organizations is meaningless as it does not represent the membership bodies.

Policy statements release by the council members or signed by just the president of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than the handful of members in the council or the president. It is meaningful in that those few scientists support such statements. It is meaningless to imply that the membership bodies of these scientific organizations (which never approved such statements) can be used in support of these statements. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of the membership's position in relation to the organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

The difference is a handful of scientists vs the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Now, please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of any of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use the membership bodies as proof of consensus.
Click to expand...

tl;dr

reported as spam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

_EQ
High Frequency Fert Help
Replies
7
Views
880
_EQ
_EQ
medidedicated
Flower Rosin Man Cave
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
4K
medidedicated
medidedicated
refriedbeano
I made a kief tumbler!
Replies
10
Views
2K
formularacer
F
H
First grow are my plants an ok size?
Replies
5
Views
546
hawkeye83
H
O
New growth kind of tiger striping?
Replies
13
Views
1K
GanjaGreg.
GanjaGreg.
Back
Top