Very good as YogSosoth and many other posters that are not bigots can continue to tell you (Really, the Brazil nut and your groupies have plenty of history on that front, IMHO that is relevant as it is a feature of the ones that fall for pseudoscience, as bigotry is a demonstration of ignorance of many things)
And once again, your complain of why a resource like skeptical science should not be used is asinine, Talkorigins.org has a worse setup, but only an idiot would declare that for that reason evolution is false or that one should not use that resource.
And then there is a basic idiotic contradiction, as I do not only use skeptical science but NASA and many others, your point on not linking to Skeptical Science for an specific wording is also dumb.
Besides the actions of the moderator that put you in the pit, the context still shows that you are only doing very ignorant points and attacks.
Once again, complaining about a science resource not having the specif wording you demand is like a creationist that complains that there is no “Irreducible complexity” in a biology site. Your arbitrary rules are just tailor made to clumsily impeach a well sourced and recommended site that scientists and even media giants are using.
Man, I am going to give up trying for a laugh, this shit is better than any satire.
What point is ignorant? Why do you think it’s an attack to point out a pseudo-scientific site doesn’t even have the terms it uses, defined in it’s own glossary? Why do you think that is an attack?
Not having the specific wording?
The fucking site is called http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
“rebutting global warming misinformation”
And it doesn’t have global warming in it’s glossary? And you think I am ignorant? HAHAHAHAHA!! Man, that’s comedy gold.
Seriously? Where do you get this shit? Oh yeah, you just make it up.
Hahahaha Yeah, it illogical to ask for a site that claims to be about “rebutting global warming misinformation”, and it doesn’t have global warming in the glossary, or have any sort of definition for what it means.
Unless you can show that Barry Bickmore and Richard alley are not scientists and that The Guardian, PBS and others are not important you are just demonstratively lying to all of us.
And again, only an idiot demands that when a specific wording is not there that that should impeach a reliable source.
Lol, yes. But as I mentioned earlier the warmist position needs to be ambiguous so that the warmists can simultaneously claim that (1) lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is solid evidence supporting their position; (3) there is little evidence contradicting their position; and (4) if we do not follow their policy prescriptions, terrible things will happen.
For example, consider the definition you proposed as an example:
The problem with this hypothesis is that, if correct, it does not necessarily require mankind to cut CO2 emissions. It does not predict dire consequences if CO2 levels continue to increase. It does not require that all or even most of the warming over the last 50 years has been due to CO2 emissions.
It’s such a mild hypothesis that you can get lots of people to agree with it. In fact, I’m pretty confident that folks like Richard Lindzen would agree with it.
It was not supposed to be, the simplest answer is that you are a fool, as I do link to other sites your criticism is really dumb.
And so it is that you have to avoid the fact that the sites that are looking at pseudoscience are telling you that it is you the one that is the denier.
So you’re basing your objection to a site because its glossary is not up to your standards, and that the warming, the scientific journals, the hundreds of articles detailing it over the last half century are all undone, vanished! because somebody didn’t have a comprehensive list of words for you somewhere? :rolleyes: You know, I can’t find “FXMastermind” in a dictionary under the word Stupid, but that doesn’t meany you’re not
Wow, this thread sure is a train wreck. After reading a couple of pages I don’t know how I feel about climate change, but I sure am sick of this fucking moron FXMastermind! Why anybody would try to engage this fuckwit is beyond me.
Well, he is the kind of fuckwit that some who were not aware of his fuckwittery may take seriously, as we have seen, not even dropping to the grammar nazi level got him any new supporters of value.
So, it is with those demonstrations of dumb assery from FX, that I consider this a good pit thread that now has not much to go for even in my educational front as FX still thinks that it is smart to teach grandma to suck eggs.
BTW I think that learning what are the latest dumb ass denial tropes that they are trying to use is a good heads up for anyone that will find them in the wild.
I congratulate you on your intellectual superiority, especially given the thread you started a couple years ago in which you did make pretty clear which side of the global warming debate you are on.
Some people might think that you are lying when you pretend that you don’t know how you feel about climate change; that you are doing so in order to enhance your credibility and make it seem like you are criticizing FXMastermind from a neutral position.
Some people might think you are a hypocrite given that you heavily used parody/sarcasm in your thread just like FXMastermind did here.
Some people might think you are threadshitting for simply wandering in and asserting your conclusion without offering any evidence or argument in support.
But obviously there is no need for you to worry about looking like a jackass given that you are on the Correct side of the issue. So I congratulate you again!
Complete hogwash of course. Pointing out the huge flaws in a pseudo-scientific blog just means it has some flaws, nothing more.
If that idiot blog was serious about education, they would list sources and clearly explain things, as would GIGOGish gallop, who avoids a straight answer like it would kill him or something.
Not defining, not even having the main terms in your glossary is a classic mistake beginners suffer, along with not having an editor to save you from the mistakes every untrained writer will make.
Global Warming and Climate change are not big, hard to grasp mysteries, like GIGOshitforbrains wants you to think. It just takes a little work to find the basic shit, because none of the blogs seem to know how too present a case, much less how to hyperink sources.
The real hilarious ironic fucked in the head moment? He says “What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?”, and then proceeds to engage in a huge cluster fuck of non peer reviewed, non science writing, his own, with not even an editor to check him for gross errors, and logical fallacies.
Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html
You are a complete idiot when you think that I would oppose what they say or report.
And you are a false witness when you tell others that “skeptical science” does not use peer reviewed science. It is their main objective and so it is doubly idiotic that you claim it is missing on the definitions, they are assumed and do not add them as most researchers also assume their readers already know the basics.
Skeptical Science is a resource to organize the peer reviewed science, stopping at only the site and not looking at the links that they use to refer to is like telling others that one should only use the Wikipedia article and not check the links.
You see once again why they never define any theory, or even explain one. The site also completely avoids explaining the mechanism by which CO2 is thought to lead to global warming.
It’s right there on the newcomer page.
Contrary to what you may have heard, the case for man-made global warming doesn’t hang on theory
Of course the bigger point would be, Are you really that deluded that you really think that helps you? Do you realize that if I followed pseudoscience that then what you report would be bad for me? On the contrary it helps me a lot, for example the last source you quoted reports in a different article that:
And that shows not only the brasil nut but you as the ones that just lied in Great Debates claiming that it was true that there is no support for the water vapor feedback.
