Search results

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.

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...

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.

Really? What conspiracy theories do I subscribe to, sure you can find them.

I actually wanted to test to see what it would take to get banned there after they moved the discussion to an unmoderated forum where you could no longer hold an intelligent conversation on the topic I was discussing. So I tried different techniques to get banned, until one worked. It was...

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? The original non peer-reviewed paper explicitly says, "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute". There never was a NAS heading...

This is incorrect as they make no such claim. The only reference to the National Academy of Sciences is from a letter signed by Dr. Seitz as being a past president of the NAS - which he was, Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University...

That is odd my last post in response to #84 requires moderator approval. I will resubmit an edited version. Note that this may unintentionally result in the post being duplicated if moderators do approve the original. The re-submission was unsuccessful. I have no idea what part of that response...

No one invited me and I don't get paid. Yes you cherry picked. See the (PDF) symbol next to the title name? That means it includes a link to a full copy of the paper. The first two papers listed where a link to the full paper is available are under the Hightlights section; CO2-induced...

This is a strawman argument in relation to the list as the title was cropped when initially posted here (something you should have noticed when you allegedly went looking for "random" samples). The list is explicitly titled; 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against...