Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:21:49 PM
Did you even bother to read the article, or did you just do a quick google search of something that might deflect my position?

No scam was proven.  No fallacy detected.  A group of ex-employees simply stated that they disagree with NASA's stance; no reasons given.

And I don't know you think astronauts count as professionals in the field of climate science.


On the contrary, I have such a mountain of evidence, I can literally throw names out for ten pages and still have plenty of ammunition left.

Stephen Hawkings.  Michio Kaku.  Both have stated that global warming is man-made.

Sci Fi, you have yet to prove actual scientists and climatologists believe in AGW.  You can show government and university funded idiots believe in it, but not anyone serious.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 04:23:06 PM
Sci Fi, you have yet to prove actual scientists and climatologists believe in AGW.  You can show government and university funded idiots believe in it, but not anyone serious.

This is what happens when you quote my entire post as though it were one rigid argument, and respond to it in kind.

I've provided two.  Stephen Hawkings and Michio Kaku.  Maybe you've heard of them.  I can provide tons more, but let's start simple.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:31:33 PM
This is what happens when you quote my entire post as though it were one rigid argument, and respond to it in kind.

I've provided two.  Stephen Hawkings and

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

QuoteMichio Kaku.  Maybe you've heard of them.

Sure I've heard of him.  He's a leftist lib.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/

Quote
I can provide tons more, but let's start simple.

Good. Keep posting them.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 04:43:30 PM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

Stephen Hawkings vs random US physics professor!  Great job, Taxed.

Quote
Sure I've heard of him.  He's a leftist lib.

Almost all scientists are liberals, Taxed.  Get used to it.  Kaku is also one of the most esteemed living scientists.  I suppose we should dismiss his contributions to string theory out of hand because he's a "leftist lib", eh?   

Now, will you cut the Ad Hominems and post something substantive?


----------

More:

Carl Sagan
Neil Degrasse Tyson

-----------

You seem to think that the scientists are the ones injecting politics into the sciences.  They're not.  You see, your denial-movement against global warming mirrors the relativity-denial movement heavily.  It's politically orientated.  You can't understand that politics do not determine what is right and wrong in the hard sciences.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 04:54:40 PM
Stephen Hawkings vs random US physics professor!  Great job, Taxed.

Almost all scientists are liberals, Taxed.  Get used to it.  Kaku is also one of the most esteemed living scientists.  I suppose we should dismiss his contributions to string theory out of hand because he's a "leftist lib", eh?   

Now, will you cut the Ad Hominems and post something substantive?


----------

More:

Carl Sagan
Neil Degrasse Tyson

-----------

You seem to think that the scientists are the ones injecting politics into the sciences.  They're not.  You see, your denial-movement against global warming mirrors the relativity-denial movement heavily.  It's politically orientated.  You can't understand that politics do not determine what is right and wrong in the hard sciences.

It's a scam, plain and simple.  You accept and bite down hard on fraud.  I don't.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 05:03:54 PM
It's a scam, plain and simple.

So after I cite Hawkings, Kaku, Sagan, and some of the most influential scientists of the 20th/21st century, you resort to a silly one liner.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 05:50:18 PM


So after I cite Hawkings, Kaku, Sagan, and some of the most influential scientists of the 20th/21st century, you resort to a silly one liner.

You didn't cite anything.  Also, you avoided Solar's response.

The fact is, you believe in absurdity, like the Polar Bears are dying, Co2 is a pollutant, and the ice caps are melting.  You can't get any dumber.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 05:55:22 PM
You didn't cite anything.  Also, you avoided Solar's response.

The fact is, you believe in absurdity, like the Polar Bears are dying, Co2 is a pollutant, and the ice caps are melting.  You can't get any dumber.

I'll relay that to Stephen Hawkings now.  He clearly can't get any dumber.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 05:50:18 PM


So after I cite Hawkings, Kaku, Sagan, and some of the most influential scientists of the 20th/21st century, you resort to a silly one liner.

The only reference that I give any credibility to is the AMS (American Meteorological Society). Maybe I'm biased because I used to be a member. 

However, viewing the whole statement (available on their website) the background is very interesting...

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a puppet of the U.N. They were basically told to produce research to back up the U.N. claims of Global Warming.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences based its data and claims of Global Warming on data provided by Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia - commonly referred to as Climategate. Perhaps you've heard of it?

As for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, it can hardly be called objective as in its very mission statement it assumes that Global Climate Change is man made.

The entire AMS statement can be viewed at their website:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 13, 2012, 06:23:26 PM
The only reference that I give any credibility to is the AMS (American Meteorological Society). Maybe I'm biased because I used to be a member. 

However, viewing the whole statement (available on their website) the background is very interesting...

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a puppet of the U.N. They were basically told to produce research to back up the U.N. claims of Global Warming.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences based its data and claims of Global Warming on data provided by Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia - commonly referred to as Climategate. Perhaps you've heard of it?

As for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, it can hardly be called objective as in its very mission statement it assumes that Global Climate Change is man made.

The entire AMS statement can be viewed at their website:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

Excellent! But don't expect an intelligent response, he's in retreat mode.

Quote from: Solar on November 13, 2012, 06:33:55 PM
Excellent! But don't expect an intelligent response, he's in retreat mode.

If it doesn't involve copying and pasting links to liberal propaganda sources, he has a hard time.

Quote from: taxed on November 13, 2012, 07:00:13 PM
If it doesn't involve copying and pasting links to liberal propaganda sources, he has a hard time.

I'm pretty much done with the troll, he can't debate actual facts, and when confronted with the truth, he either runs away or deflects and says some off the wall statement that has absolutely no meaning to anyone, in hopes of baffling  them into submission.
It's the tactic of an ignorant debater.

He's a time waster. Better to focus on the open minded and motivating them to participate in 2014 and 2016.

Quote from: Solar on November 13, 2012, 07:51:53 PM
I'm pretty much done with the troll, he can't debate actual facts, and when confronted with the truth, he either runs away or deflects and says some off the wall statement that has absolutely no meaning to anyone, in hopes of baffling  them into submission.
It's the tactic of an ignorant debater.

He is very easily influenced by frauds and imbeciles that he refers to as "Professor" or "Teacher".

Quote from: Yawn on November 13, 2012, 07:54:16 PM
He's a time waster. Better to focus on the open minded and motivating them to participate in 2014 and 2016.

I agree, we need to focus on facts, people come here for the content, but with a lost cause cluttering the forum, people have trouble cutting through the crap.