You made the claim - I answered. If you kept up with the discussion you would have understood the answer.
The answer being, while you claim to have once been a believer in global warming, now you are not, which makes clear that you have a bias. Nothing hard to understand about that.
There you go again... I'm assuming nothing and I acutually do understand the complexity...
That's what you say, and yet I see no proof of that.
Apparently you don't see the significance of deuterium
Because there isn't any. I have read a lot of global warming papers and not one has cited it as a major factor.
- it was a test to see if you would bother researching or just dismiss it out-of-hand. You've made my point; thanks.
Actually, I did research it. Had I found something of value, I would have added something to the discussion about it. You have, yourself, several times, dismissed my point about the complex relationship between CO2 and temps, though, once again, proving that you are not objective. In your own verbiage, thanks for proving my point, thanks.
You do know what a "Red Herring" means - don't you? Well - let's assume that you do. You are insinuating that I am inserting evidence or commentary to refute or switch the discussion. Since I remained on topic both times, we can eliminate the "direction change" - leaving only the "refutation".
Actually, you are trying to switch the discussion, Merlin. When you aren't bringing up things that don't even remotely apply (Flat Earth Theory, for instance), you are bringing things up that science is not supporting as a factor (deuterium). Then, when none of that works, you either attempt to insult the person you are debating or talk down to them, all weak tactics.
So, all we need to do is go back through the thread and find out where I used humor to make fun of AL or other people and compare it with the many times I have used humor for other reasons... Like - to make people laugh, even at my own expense.
Very little of that, very much joking at Gore's expense, though, as I remember.
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like. What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters. I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.
You too have a future in politics - you avoided answering that question completely. You even went so far as to try and cast dispersions about my motives! Transparent - but well done. That now make three of you who are unwilling to demonstrate your GW/GCC knowledge and understanding in a format that is limited to only knowledge the poster possesses and not their ability to cut & paste bone.
Again, you want to set new parameters for the debate, seemingly excluding graphs, global warming news, reports, and opinion while you (wanting to retain your ability to make jokes), would no doubt continue to make light of Gore and the people you are debating to your heart's content. You are actually the one being transparent here, Merlin. If you want to bring up some scientific points here, Merlin, by all means, go ahead, no one is stopping you. You certainly didn't have that type of discussion in the other forum, so I don't know why you are so insistent upon only having it here.
As for the rest of us demonstrating global warming knowledge, by that I imagine you mean, be supportive of your view of the data. If that happens to be your criteria, than I imagine you will, of course, be disappointed, irregardless.
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion. I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.
No you aren't, now your just being evasive and argumentative.
Hardly, I thought I gave a pretty fair explanation.
And wouldn't it be a hoot if the newspapers read, "Though not a 'Hoax' as the skeptics of the 21st claimed, the gradual warming of the Earth due to gravitational and magnetosphere variations appears to be finally coming to an end."
Yes, especially as neither has even been cited as a cause.
I'm going to skip the Gore stuff cause I frankly think it's silly to keep debating his electric bills.
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public. But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.
It's gaining more popularity - not evidence, and I don't care what the public comes to believe. Popularization is the archenemy to truth in most cases.
It's gaining more popularity because of the movie. The recent scientific data has only enhanced the central theory. The data would be even more dire were it not constantly being edited by bureaucrats.
