Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

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

  • Total voters
    14
poptech

poptech

Member
UncleBuck said:
lol, that's not what it looked like to me, CT crackpot.
Click to expand...
Of course that is not what it looks like to you. You could not see me laughing everytime I hit ctrl+v to paste the text over and over but I had lots of fun.

UncleBuck said:
say, why don't you publish your disproof, collect your millions of dollars and worldwide accolades, and be seen as a hero to the most ignorant, science hating half of this country?
Click to expand...
Why don't you actually present an argument to a point I made, the fact that you cannot speaks volumes.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
Of course that is not what it looks like to you. You could not see me laughing everytime I hit ctrl+v to paste the text over and over but I had lots of fun.


Why don't you actually present an argument to a point I made, the fact that you cannot speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
i did present an argument.

if you are so awesome at this disproof thing, why not publish and collect millions of dollars and worldwide accolade?*

why piss into the wind on a cannabis website like some dithering moron?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
I got the dates 100% correct as those dates are right to the peer-reviewed versions of those papers. Did you even click on the links?
Click to expand...
you linked http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n2/p149-164/

[h=1]CR 13:149-164 (1999) - doi:10.3354/cr013149[/h] [h=2]Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide[/h]
[h=3]Willie Soon[SUP]1,[/SUP]*, Sallie L. Baliunas[SUP]1[/SUP], Arthur B. Robinson[SUP]2[/SUP], Zachary W. Robinson[SUP]2[/SUP]
Click to expand...
[/h]how on earth did you get the dates right?

The original non peer-reviewed paper explicitly says, "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute". There never was a NAS heading. Why are you lying about this? So what you are telling me is that those complaining to the NAS were so incompetent that they did not read what was explicitly stated in the title of the paper and instead recognized the "formatting" of the paper?
Click to expand...
yeah but unless they had a time machine the paper you linked isnt original (and obviously changed)


The reason for the original formatting was made explicitly clear by Dr. Robinson,



This petition was widely circulated and those attacking it have copies of the original and have never made any claim that the paper had a NAS heading.


They don't because that is not how the peer-review process works. Journals do not have reviewers on staff nor do they only use reviewers based on the title of the journal. Editors send papers out to reviewers who are experts in the field a paper's contents are on. In this case it would have been sent out to climate scientists for review. It is quite clear that you do not understand how the peer-review process works.
Click to expand...
funny how the surgeons thought the paper was just fine when people found all these criticisms with it

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/16/oregonpetition/
 
poptech

poptech

Member
UncleBuck said:
the theory that thousands of scientists in dozens of countries are conspiring together to pull off a decades in the making hoax only to be recently foiled by crackpot sock puppets and the least intelligent, anti-science morons among us.
Click to expand...
Please quote me where I made this claim. Surely you are better at using Google than your are at creating strawman arguments?

Did you miss my anti-911 conspiracy theory post?

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Maybe the ones on debunking Ancient Aliens, JFK or Moon Landing conspiracy theories?

Surely you can not be this bad at stereo-typing?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
Please quote me where I made this claim. Surely you are better at using Google than your are at creating strawman arguments?

Did you miss my anti-911 conspiracy theory post?

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Maybe the ones on debunking Ancient Aliens, JFK or Moon Landing conspiracy theories?

Surely you can not be this bad at stereo-typing?
Click to expand...
everyone hates steriotyping

"marijuana is a very dangerous drug that has been propagandized as "safe" by weak minded idiots."

now where did that come from?

 
poptech

poptech

Member
UncleBuck said:
i did present an argument.

if you are so awesome at this disproof thing, why not publish and collect millions of dollars and worldwide accolade?*

why piss into the wind on a cannabis website...
Click to expand...
More strawman arguments, I made no such claims. I posted here in response to false claims made about my list, which took less than 2 minutes.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
Please quote me where I made this claim. Surely you are better at using Google than your are at creating strawman arguments?

Did you miss my anti-911 conspiracy theory post?

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Maybe the ones on debunking Ancient Aliens, JFK or Moon Landing conspiracy theories?

Surely you can not be this bad at stereo-typing?
Click to expand...
lol.

look at your sig link, dummy.

you must be so good at putting the vast majority of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists in their place that you amuse yourself with stoners on a pot website, right?

making millions of dollard and worldwide accolade for your research is too easy, right?

so dumb.
 
poptech

poptech

Member
ginjawarrior said:
you linked http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n2/p149-164/

how on earth did you get the dates right?
Click to expand...
The link says 1999. I was only posting the peer-reviewed versions of the paper not the original non-peer-reviewed version.

ginjawarrior said:
yeah but unless they had a time machine the paper you linked isnt original (and obviously changed)
Click to expand...
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.

ginjawarrior said:
funny how the surgeons thought the paper was just fine when people found all these criticisms with it

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/16/oregonpetition/
Click to expand...
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?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

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...
here comes the bold. not too long before freedomworksjunior, aka poptart, starts breaking out the crayons.
 
poptech

poptech

Member
ginjawarrior said:
everyone hates steriotyping

"marijuana is a very dangerous drug that has been propagandized as "safe" by weak minded idiots."

now where did that come from?
Click to expand...
Why are you changing the subject after I refuted you in extensive detail on climate change? Are you conceding defeat?
 
poptech

poptech

Member
UncleBuck said:
lol.

look at your sig link,

you must be so good at putting the vast majority of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists in their place that you amuse yourself with stoners on a pot website, right?

making millions of dollard and worldwide accolade for your research is too easy, right?
Click to expand...
What about my signature link? That is why I original posted, to quickly correct some nonsense stated about it. I made none of your other strawman arguments. Why can you not formulate an actual argument?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

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...
hey poptart, scientific thought exists in a person's mind, not a vacuum.

the fact that you propagate such utterly retarded notions such as cannabis being a gateway drug is proof positive that you are fart-pimping a douchey agenda, not examining things with a critical mind.

does that help, poptart?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
poptech said:
How is the trolling going? Did anyone fall for the bait yet?
Click to expand...
have you gained worldwide accolade and millions of dollars for your CT crackpot research? or you still getting fat, sitting in a chair, and updating your crappy little website?

:lol:
 
poptech

poptech

Member
UncleBuck said:
have you gained worldwide accolade and millions of dollars for your CT crackpot research? or you still getting fat, sitting in a chair, and updating your crappy little website?
Click to expand...
You only have two arguments

1. Strawman
2. Troll

Keep trying I am sure you can learn to do better.
 
poptech

poptech

Member
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top