Except that you are a “denier,” which means that at some point in the past, you maintained that the climate was unchanging. Even if you didn’t say it yourself, some other denier must have said it and each denier is responsible for the statements of every other denier. (And don’t bother asking me who said it and when, that only proves you are a denier.)
Therefore, you have changed your mind which demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.
Now you got it. This is called science.
This is like watching several special needs kids trying to play chess.
You’re mistaken. I specifically did NOT define it. You cleverly constructed a straw man and smacked it.
Actually it’s more like watching a community college adjunct professor pretend to be an actual scholar.
Say what?
FxMastermind:
AlienVessels:
Looks to me like you are weaseling. Either you were dishonestly pretending to define “global warming theory” before or you are dishonestly pretending now that you weren’t defining it.
But let’s do this:
Before, when you said that “Global warming theory says its going to get warmer and humans contribute to that,” what exactly was your point? Were you attempting to explain what the phrase means? If not, what was your point?
How exactly did I misrepresent your position? You seemed to be saying that in defining “global warming theory,” it’s not necessary to distinguish between modest warming and dangerous warming; or between warming caused by CO2 and warming caused by other factors; or between warming which is primarily natural in cause and warming which primarily caused by mankind’s activities.
I specifically asked you about these distinctions and your response was that “It doesn’t have to get more specific than that.”
Also, what did you mean when you said “martyr card.”? Just a few posts ago, I politely asked another poster to back up his claims and was accused of “denialism.” Is it somehow illegitimate to point out how ridiculous such an accusation is?
P.S. I don’t know what subterraneanus’s actual position is, but given his arrogance and reluctance to back up his claims about his academic qualifications, I have a strong feeling he is exaggerating, to put it politely.
Yes, which is why it helps to view arguing about global warming on the internet as a horrible video game, run by meth addicts and whores, and most of the time the person you are arguing with is an unemployed social misfit with nothing else to do.
At least that way you won’t be disappointed in the outcome.
In a stunning reversal, climate alarmists admit they were probably wrong. Australia’s heat wave just a normal fluctuation.
Warning: the link may be behind a N.Y.Times paywall. (That newspaper is run by leftists and isn’t happy to let this story get out.)
Yes, and here’s how you know the results are correct:
lol!
The findings relied on computer analyses of what the climate would have been like in the absence of human-caused greenhouse emissions, a type of research widely acknowledged to be imperfect, and which often produces conflicting findings from different groups.
This topic just became awesome again.
“Widely acknowledged to be imperfect” is a bit of an understatement. If these computer analyses had any value whatsoever, they would be able to make interesting, accurate, bona fide predictions about the climate. But they don’t do that; instead they are tuned in various ways to match history and the matching is used as proof that the model is accurate.
It’s so much worse than that. The past changes they predict are based on the adjusted data, so the computer models have a hard time re-creating the changes the adjusted data shows, because the past temperature record they are trying to create with a model, never actually existed.
It’s a big reason for not changing data. It screws everybody, not just the ignorant taxpayer.
When I say I wasn’t defining global warming, I meant not in the more specific sense in which you concluded the following.
The world will get warmer and humans are contributing to that. In logical terms it’s about the weakest form of the hypothesis, but it is fine as a starting point.
I do not have to accept any particular subset of assumptions, real or attributed, of those who support that notion.
I have no idea what your point is here. You seemed to be saying that for purposes of your definition, it is not necessary to distinguish between modest warming and severe warming; between warming caused by CO2 emissions and warming caused by other activities of man; and between warming which is primarily caused by mankind and warming which is only slightly caused by mankind.
What I am saying is that these distinctions are important; that if one uses your definition of “global warming theory,” then (1) it is pretty clear that ‘global warming theory’ is correct; and (2) it does not necessarily follow that mankind needs to curtail CO2 emissions.
Again, I have no idea what your point is here.
Do you agree with the following:
(1) As you have defined “global warming theory,” there is no serious controversy but that “global warming theory” is correct.
(2) If “global warming theory” as you have defined it is correct, it does not necessarily follow that mankind needs to curtail its CO2 emissions.
These are simple, reasonable questions I am asking in order to understand your position.
Also, please explain how exactly I misrepresented your position. What did I imply or state about your position which was incorrect?
Also, please answer the following: Just a few posts ago, I politely asked another poster to back up his claims and was accused of “denialism.” Is it somehow illegitimate to point out how ridiculous such an accusation is?
These are simple, reasonable questions I am asking so that I can understand your position.
What assumptions are you being asked to accept? Please quote them.
I went back and reread it and you still seem to have made the same argument that creationists make. Unless someone stole your password and made that same argument that creationists make. Barring this, you made the same argument that creationists make. I suggest you not make the same arguments that creationists make. Because they are wrong when creationists make them and wrong when you make them.
If that isn’t succinct enough, possibly this link will assist you. Or this one.
Toodles!
Do you think that arguments along the lines of “You don’t know enough to be confident in your conclusion” are EVER valid?
Or are is that argument always wrong because creationists make such an argument?
The magnificence of your stupidity is awesome, astounding, breathtaking.
I’'ll just leave you with this, again, to ponder:
Not that you’re one brain cell will be able to figure out why I typed it, but it gives me pleasure thinking of you looking at it again and again trying to crack the code and glean meaning. Kinda like a cat trying to figure out what’s going on when they see something on the Tv screen. I even picture you cocking your head, in the cute way that cats do.
Perhaps you should take a movie of yourself reading the comment> Maybe you can post it on YouTube under Human Body, Cat Brain and watch the views skyrocket. You could become a sensation.
You poor, poor, stupid man…
Calling idiots names is a waste of time.