You are not understanding the point. If the argument was scientists believe this I would have explicitly stated it. There is no justification for not claiming my argument is valid based on politicians and the public believing a myth instead of scientists. Since government is considering policies based on this myth my argument is not only valid but relevant.
His reasoning is a strawman excuse used to censor my thread.
I believe this has been mentioned already, but it’s important enough that it bears repeating: moving a thread is very much not the same thing as “censoring” it.
I fully expect this comment to have absolutely zero impact on the future course of this thread.
No, you weren’t.
This thread is still here and is being actively discussed.
If this thread were being censored, it would be gone or large portions would be removed or obscured.
Learn to use a dictionary.
I don’t like to reargue threads in ATMB, but I feel obliged to point out that Poptech’s thesis was this:
Note that the word “proponents” is plural. So far he’s proved that at most, one person (John Kerry) declares that there are no skeptical peer-reviewed papers on AGW. At a bare minimum, his own wording requires multiple proponents making this claim. And in reality, a statement like this requires that a significant number of AGW proponents believe it. He hasn’t come close to showing that, but so far he hasn’t even met the bare minimum standard of two.
It was censored from the Great Debates forum and moved to a forum designating it as unworthy of a real debate.
That’s because it wasn’t.
Okay, there’s no way in hell I’m wading through that other thread. I read the first page and skimmed the rest, trying to find the kind of posts that made it warrant going in The Pit. I’m a little puzzled on that one, but it seems the judgment was that it was more of a rant than a debate.
SoulFrost said:
Maybe it’s because I didn’t read the whole other thread, but I am seeing Poptech’s point here. His original post was that people believe that there is no credible peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of the man-made nature of AGW. Notice that his post does not state “scientists”, it states “people”. The last time I checked, Senators counted as “people”. Okay, marginally, but slightly moreso than lawyers and somewhat less than circus clowns.
Can somebody show me where Poptech posted the claim that scientists believe there is no scientific criticism of AGW?
Furthermore, this puzzles me, because it is my understanding that most of the arguments against the papers that he is quoting is that they are not particularly valid science - they are posted in journals not aimed at or scrutinized by climate scientists, etc. The arguments seem to be that the pro AGW skeptic papers are poor science. Doesn’t that then mean that scientists agree that there is no scientific criticism of AGW? Am I missing something?
Also, and again I didn’t read that whole thread so I may have missed something, but wouldn’t the simple response to his repeated discussion of “there are not 750 peer reviewed pro AGW papers published every month or two” be to simply agree and state that what’s his name’s* claim was exaggerated and somewhat rhetorical, rather than getting caught up in debating what “few” means? In other words, it was a minor and inconsequential point that could have been conceded or require the person defending it to step up, rather than arguing with Poptech that he should give up. Did I miss something in how that was handled?
*I don’t recall who said it, and I don’t want to look it up. It doesn’t matter.
Poptech said:
I, too, wish to know how Marley23 could moderate the comments against you by telling the people making them to cut out the personal insults and simultaneously ignore those comments. What did he not do that you think he should have done that would have constituted not ignoring them?
conway said:
Just whom are you calling a “retarded cat”? :mad:
So why was this not asked before censoring the thread from the Great Debates forum? Try reading the quote I posted in the beginning of the thread,
It is clear that he said AGW voices (plural). John Kerry who is an advocate of AGW is evidence this is said.
The irony being the BBQ Pit is less censored.
It didn’t occur to me until just now. People got busy dealing with the other misinformation you posted - for example they attempted to argue the facts about AGW. It wasn’t until you posted Kerry quote that I realized how low you’d deliberately set the bar for yourself.
And once again: moving a thread is not censorship. It is impossible to take anything you say seriously while you are making this claim. The thread was moved because its tenor and your goals were not appropriate for Great Debates. When tomndebb moved the thread, he did not prevent anybody from saying anything in the thread. In fact the rules in the Pit are more relaxed.
It was not censored from the Great Debates forum?
Wasn’t worthy of debate.
Name one piece of misinformation I posted, you keep making these baseless claims.
How the hell is a quote from a U.S. Senator who is one of the lead spokespersons in the Senate for climate legislation setting the bar low??
It was censored from the Great Debates forum based on lies and fraudulent charges. My goal was not appropriate for Great Debates? A belief that can have policy implications totaling trillions of dollars is not worthy of the Great Debates forum? ROFLMAO!!! Maybe I should have come up with a truly great debate such as if Abe Lincoln was gay.
If I wanted to debate in the pit, I would have posted there.
A belief that can have policy implications totaling trillions of dollars is not worthy of the Great Debates forum?
Obviously you are not interested in getting anyone to take your views seriously - which explains your post to this point. So I won’t be answering any more of your questions.
The way you presented things led to fighting, not debating.
Again, you cannot support you baseless claims,
Name one piece of misinformation I posted
Each time I call you or Tom on them you fabricate new strawmen to make excuses for your biased moderating.
No. It was MOOOOVED.