Stop being an Armchair Psychologist Chief Pedant.

[GIGObuster]

How do we know that C02 is a greenhouse gas?

Regarding Posts 33, 36 and now 44

@Chief Pedant

The link referenced has to do with how an author’s reaction to criticism unfolded. It was not characterized by me as “evidence” of any kind except, perhaps, for evidence how the scientific process is messy. That you would choose to pretend that I characterized it as primary evidence for the science of AGW itself is unfortunate and, (for the sake of trying to remain civil) I shall assume was in error.

(This was after I noticed that his source was saying that climate researchers were involved in a conspiracy, the Chief never came back with evidence that it was.)

@Chief Pedant

It’s my personal opinion that your faith in said process is naive and your confidence in the significance of the conclusions overstated, but it’s not my intention to debate AGW here.

:rolleyes:

Besides saying that when we where still in GQ, the Chief just continues his baseless accusations that I and many that check the science are relying on faith regarding this issue.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmchairPsychology Armchair Psychology [Real Life]

This is usually an annoying forum debate tactic, in which rules against personal attacks are sidestepped by resorting to this trope. It crosses the line from annoying to funny when the users Did Not Do The Research and wheel out psychological terminology that’s obsolete or doesn’t mean what they think it does.

Oh, I’m Sorry, that was cited not as evidence; that is just a TvTropes writer explaining how messy your citation methods look like, but perhaps it is evidence on how your debating tactics sucks.

Accusing others of using faith when it is evidence what it is driving them is really insulting, especially in GQ.

But what really takes the cake was attempting to continue to use baseless opinion pieces from unreliable sources when we were still in GQ. They are indeed useless opinions if they do not have links to the sources.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/lindzen_in_wsj.php

Recently the WSJ opinion section just copied the recent misrepresentations and lies that the Daily Mail published and were the cause of many of the recent GD threads, even after the BBC had posted the complete interview with Phil Jones:

Journalistic malpractice on global warming

This was reported before and ignored, the British tabloids and the WSJ opinion are constantly attempting to mislead the public regarding the scientific evidence. And people like Chief Pedant just continue to worry ad nauseam about who is taking the evidence on faith while ignoring on purpose how their sources are making them look like fools.

[Jackmannii]

I think it’s a fabiola idea to pit specific posts in a thread (in this case “Posts 33, 36 and now 44”).

It seems more civilized to hurl numbers at each other, rather than invective.

Eventually the Pit will wind up resembling British Parliament.

“Dog-faced swine!”

“I refer the gentleman to #57.”

“Ha, #119!”

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

Hm, I thought this would be about that tiresome ‘Great Cause’-routine…

[GIGObuster]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Hm, I thought this would be about that tiresome ‘Great Cause’-routine…

Well, it is in a way.

He does combine it with religion and proselytism, they are part of the “great cause” never mind that I agree that some of solutions proposed to deal with AGW are bananas, he assumes that scientists and people who follow the science are in reality following a cult or a religion.