Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Scam
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 61 of 177 (585869)
10-10-2010 8:01 AM


"Carbon dioxide concentration isn't measured in pixels." - AlGorian reply to my graph
Please pay attention. I know, science is hard.
You see, scientists the world over, not to mention thoughtful people in all disciplines, use graphs to REPRESENT quantities.
Lines are purposefully drawn to indicate, oh, years, or pounds, or Kelvins. Not that those distances between lines on graphs really ARE years or pounds or Kelvins themselves. That's just what they depict, as a method of instantly conveying information.
Likewise, since the medium at hand here is the internet, and images appear on a monitor, all images are necessarily composed of individual pixels. The dot above the "i" in "pixels" is one pixel.
Are you with me so far, Pixie?
Now the reason I indicated anthropogenic carbon dioxide as one pixel in depth is that you cannot draw a line on a monitor any smaller than one pixel. So to minimize the overall height of the graph, I minimized the smallest component, viz. anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The graph is still huge despite my efforts to shrink it and keep everything to scale.
Nothing seems to anger Darwinists and AlGorians as much as the advancement of scientific facts and perspectives. They instantly engage in such reprehensible tactics as the ad hominem attack, so masterfully exhibited by Omnivorous, I believe.
And the rest of the pack don't mind a bit how silly or hateful their fellow pack member gets. It's reminiscent of hyenas, eating their victim alive.
Edited by BarackZero, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by frako, posted 10-10-2010 8:08 AM BarackZero has replied
 Message 63 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 9:38 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 3:14 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2010 5:32 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 76 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2010 8:27 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 62 of 177 (585870)
10-10-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 8:01 AM


"Carbon dioxide concentration isn't measured in pixels." - AlGorian reply to my graph
Please pay attention. I know, science is hard.
You see, scientists the world over, not to mention thoughtful people in all disciplines, use graphs to REPRESENT quantities.
Lines are purposefully drawn to indicate, oh, years, or pounds, or Kelvins. Not that those distances between lines on graphs really ARE years or pounds or Kelvins themselves. That's just what they depict, as a method of instantly conveying information.
Likewise, since the medium at hand here is the internet, and images appear on a monitor, all images are necessarily composed of individual pixels. The dot above the "i" in "pixels" is one pixel.
Are you with me so far, Pixie?
Now the reason I indicated anthropogenic carbon dioxide as one pixel in depth is that you cannot draw a line on a monitor any smaller than one pixel. So to minimize the overall height of the graph, I minimized the smallest component, viz. anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The graph is still huge despite my efforts to shrink it and keep everything to scale.
Nothing seems to anger Darwinists and AlGorians as much as the advancement of scientific facts and perspectives. They instantly engage in such reprehensible tactics as the ad hominem attack, so masterfully exhibited by Omnivorous, I believe.
And the rest of the pack don't mind a bit how silly or hateful their fellow pack member gets. It's reminiscent of hyenas, eating their victim alive.
still you base you calculations on this logic: "there is to little of the substance compared to all other substances in the air to have an efect"
try taking one pixel of LSD compared to the pixle size of your body and then say there is to little of it to have any efect.
say you waigh an average of 80 kg that is 80 000 g, for lsd to have an efect on you you need to take in 20 micro grams 0.02 g that is 0.00000025% of your body waight and it will make you fly for hours.
so i hope this explains that your logic to little compared to everything else in the air is flawed
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 8:01 AM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:38 PM frako has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 177 (585892)
10-10-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 8:01 AM


Topic B0, Topic.
You have been asked several times, in Message 43 and in Message 49, 'Do you plan on providing anything to support your assertion that there is some "Global Warming Scam"?'
It has also been pointed out to you that the smaller the percentage of the man made contributions to the whole, the MORE we must reduce those man made contributions.
It has also been pointed out to you that the only contributions we actually have much control over are the man made contributions.
Do you ever plan on addressing those issues?
Do you think you could please learn to use the quote facilities (explained in help files found to the left of the test entry box {the area you type in when replying} or by using the peek mode to see how others did it) so that we can actually read your posts?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 8:01 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 64 of 177 (585906)
10-10-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 7:47 AM


BarackZero writes:
BarackZero replies to yet another ad hominem attack
Thanks for demonstrating that you are ignorant of the meaning of ad hominem.
BarackZero writes:
Now as to "AlGorianism," it is a fervent belief, and you are one of the apostles.
You are making up bullshit and demonstrating that your ignorance is quite widespread.
BarackZero writes:
Name one promoter of anthropogenic global warming/climate change who is better known throughout America than Al Gore, and I will change the moniker to that hypocritical individual.
I follow the science, not the promoters.
BarackZero writes:
I have studied the science, and with greater scientific and economic acumen than you possess.
You can't have studied it very well, since you are completely wrong about it. Your estimation of your own scientific and economic acumen bears no relation to the reality of your stunning ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 65 of 177 (585919)
10-10-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 7:47 AM


crashfrog:
The discussions about climate change are happening at the conferences you so recently lampooned. The discussions about evolution are happening in the offices and labs of biological sciences. If you want to be a part of those discussions, nobody is stopping you but you.
BarackZero:
You said the foregoing in response to this comment I made:
"But that never seems to happen, ever, anywhere."
By "that" I clearly meant the challenges that Global Warming is NOT anthropogenic, the challenge that evolution CANNOT AND DOES NOT explain what it purports to explain.
"THAT" is what I meant, and you know it. That is why you and your friends are so eager to pounce on my every word.
1. The "discussions about evolution" always take place with the firm conviction that nothing else can ever displace descent with modification, top down and bottom up, all the way.
Such discussions never consider, for a second, the countless shortfalls of Darwinism. On the contrary, they are all blinked away, dismissively, derisively. This is anti-scientific as my alleged inability to "wipe Al Gore's ass" in the lovely lexicon of your pal.
2. Likewise "discussions about Climate Change" formerly and recently "Global Warming" are never permitted unless they assume full anthropogenic cause and effect.
Otherwise the dissenter can simply go TRY to "wipe Al Gore's (oversize) ass" and fail miserably at the attempt.
*Science*, Darwin-style.
nwr:
I have avoided posting, to reduce the "piling on" problem. However, up to now I don't think anybody has bothered to point out that there is no such thing as "AlGorianism", or that modern evolutionary theory has moved beyond what Darwin proposed and should not be referred to as "Darwinism".
But, hey, if you want to continue your rants, don't let me stop you. At least I can get some good entertainment as I laugh at your public display of gross ignorance. Incidentally, there's good news for you. Ignorance can actually be cured. All you have to do is take the time to actually study the science.
++++++++++++++++++
BarackZero replies to yet another ad hominem attack:
Why don't you tell eminent Darwinist, Michael Ruse, that "Darwinism" is not the appropriate word. His book, published in 1982, by Addison Wesley, was titled "Darwinism Defended."
His remarks are replete with "Darwinism."
Argue with one of your own, please.
Now as to "AlGorianism," it is a fervent belief, and you are one of the apostles. Your ignorance of the creation of new words relevant to discovery and enlightenment is lamentable.
Name one promoter of anthropogenic global warming/climate change who is better known throughout America than Al Gore, and I will change the moniker to that hypocritical individual.
I have studied the science, and with greater scientific and economic acumen than you possess.
The fact is that so many *environmentalists* blather so very much, while personally doing so little of what they insist everyone ELSE do.
Sickening, stunning hypocrisy, a la Al Gore, the master of it.
Are you trying to set a new internet record for the ratio of rhetoric to substance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 66 of 177 (585922)
10-10-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 8:01 AM


Graphs, a civil discussion
Please pay attention. I know, science is hard.
You see, scientists the world over, not to mention thoughtful people in all disciplines, use graphs to REPRESENT quantities.
Nice bit of patronising there Barack. I can't imagine why people are giving you such a hard time
Since you're patronising us, please excuse me if I inadvertantly return the favour - we understand that if you draw a graph that charts the composition of the entire atmosphere over time, the change in carbon dioxide content would be completely unrepresented unless the graph was ludicrously large. We all understand that a million is a big number.
But in scientific circles (actually in maths, which science uses to good effect), we tend to draw graphs for a purpose. That purpose is to visually display information for rapid comprehension (much quicker than reading through a table of data for instance). In order to do this we have to choose our scale. The scale should be relevant to the values we're interested in.
For instance, when we're considering how something changes through time, our x axis is going to be time, and the left most value will be the earliest time we're interested in, and the rightmost the latest time. If we are concerned about the change in CO2 over the last ten years it would be foolish to have a graph that was 500 years long, the bit we are interested in will be difficult to read accurately.
Likewise, we'll want to pick our y axis to represent the minimum and maximum values of the thing we're interested. For instance, CO2 concentration. Therefore, picking a scale that goes from 0 to 900,000 when the values of interest are 0-500, would be absurd. The graph would not serve the purpose of displaying information in a way that can be understood quickly and easily.
The only relevant question, upon seeing a rise in CO2 levels to this magnitude is: Is this significant enough to cause problems? The size and scale of the graph are meaningless, they are just tools used to help us see the facts. But if we're agreed on the facts, the question is, so now what?
I suggested that a similar increase in CO, could have lethal effects on life. This I did to demonstrate that relatively low concentrations of a thing, are not necessarily indicative of low environmental impact.
Since you and I agree that the increase is low compared with the total atmosphere, would it be a good idea to now go on to discuss what this implies?
Now - for full disclosure, I've not studied the subject in depth. From what I can see, it seems abundantly clear that AGW is a reality. I am not particularly attached to this view, I've absolutely no care for Al Gore whatsoever. If you would like to persuade me that a scam has been perpetrated, then you will have to be persuasive. That means, among other things, being civil and assuming you are talking with someone who can follow along with discussion of a scientific issue, who can read through journal entries of novel disciplines and comprehend the gist of things.
Maybe, by example, we can demonstrate to the 'hyenas' how civilized people who have some disagreements can come to understanding through discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 8:01 AM BarackZero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 67 of 177 (585957)
10-10-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 7:37 AM


By "that" I clearly meant the challenges that Global Warming is NOT anthropogenic, the challenge that evolution CANNOT AND DOES NOT explain what it purports to explain.
Only cranks are talking about those things because a vast weight of evidence, convincing to anyone who approaches the subject with an open mind, indicates that evolution is the scientifically accurate explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth, and that human activities are the primary cause of a recent and anomalous climate warming trend that stands to wreak an enormous cost on human society. The notions that climate change and evolution are hoaxes are not part of any serious discussion because these notions aren't serious. They're crank conspiracy theories.
Such discussions never consider, for a second, the countless shortfalls of Darwinism.
There are no serious shortfalls of evolution. (Nobody calls it "Darwinism" but creationists, because we've significantly expanded the theory since Darwin. For instance, evolution now is informed by molecular genetics.
Likewise "discussions about Climate Change" formerly and recently "Global Warming" are never permitted unless they assume full anthropogenic cause and effect.
Because anthropogenic cause has been proven. (Anthropogenic effect seems stupidly obvious; obviously, we live on Earth so changes to Earth's climate would affect humans.) Anthropogenic cause is a reality. Being a part of a reality-based discussion means accepting reality. If you'd rather talk about a fantasy world, as you apparently insist on doing, that's fine, but that's not going to be a serious discussion.
Otherwise the dissenter can simply go TRY to "wipe Al Gore's (oversize) ass"
Al Gore is fat - therefore climate change is a hoax. Climate change deniers like yourself have no other argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 7:37 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 68 of 177 (585958)
10-10-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 8:01 AM


AlGorian reply to my graph
Nobody replying to you is named "AlGorian." Please follow the forum guidelines and correctly attribute quoted material.
You see, scientists the world over, not to mention thoughtful people in all disciplines, use graphs to REPRESENT quantities.
You're exactly right.
Therefore arguments about how many pixels CO2 would be are completely irrelevant.
The graph is still huge despite my efforts to shrink it and keep everything to scale.
But we measure atmospheric CO2 in parts per million, not in the size of graphs or in pixels. These arguments of yours are irrelevant to the issue, as you've just proven.
It's reminiscent of hyenas, eating their victim alive.
You came to our website, friend, and then immediately started calling people names. Complaining about the shoddy response is a bit rich, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 8:01 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 69 of 177 (585967)
10-10-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
10-10-2010 3:14 PM


Re: Graphs, a civil discussion
modulus:
Now - for full disclosure, I've not studied the subject in depth. From what I can see, it seems abundantly clear that AGW is a reality.
BarackZero:
1. It seems abundantly clear TO YOU that AGW is a reality.
Now assuming that were true, then WHY:
A. Are tens, indeed hundreds of thousands of AGW naysayers perpetually flying and driving around and around and around the world to declare that flying and driving around the world is so deadly? Please answer that before you go on.
B. WHY are any and all attempts to illustrate what is misleading about AGW universally met with hateful condemnation, after the fashion of your beloved Omnivorous, who referred to me as a "teenager" unfit to "wipe Al Gore's ass"?
How does that fit in your alleged goal of "Understanding through Discussion"?
C. Why do you utterly refuse to enforce Rule #10?
Modulus: // If you would like to persuade me that a scam has been perpetrated, then you will have to be persuasive. That means, among other things, being civil and assuming you are talking with someone who can follow along with discussion of a scientific issue, who can read through journal entries of novel disciplines and comprehend the gist of things.
BarackZero: I have spent a very long time merely defending a GRAPH! A GRAPH! That your pals feign MY ignorance and relentlessly attack ME when they know very well that I have presented a perfectly good graph is something YOU should address.
But, no, instead you jump in and pretend that I have not been "civil."
Nowhere have I called any of your pals "high schoolers."
I have not and will not say any of them are "unworthy of wiping Al Gore's ass." That's the stuff of Omnivorous. Brilliant, you must admit. Right on point with the "Global Warming Scam."
Now I can present graph after graph, and all you need do is to claim it is not "persuasive." But not in so many words.
No, much better is merely to focus, in most general terms, on MY ignorance. Deviate from the subject, and press your hateful points home.
Oh, and disregard Rule #10 and "Understanding through Discussion." It's the left's sine qua non.
Modulus:
Maybe, by example, we can demonstrate to the 'hyenas' how civilized people who have some disagreements can come to understanding through discussion.
BarackZero:
ONLY when you have begun to address the hyenas, and their style.
Only then. Incidentally, where does one find a classroom or a conference room where "ignorance" and "stupidity" and "insanity" are so eagerly and often bandied about as they are by your peers?
I have yet to find one, and I have discussions with scholarly people quite often. I even pointed out a number of errors on one professor's website. His laziness was remarkable, as he admitted to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 10-10-2010 6:41 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2010 8:01 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 10-12-2010 3:30 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 70 of 177 (585974)
10-10-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by frako
10-10-2010 8:08 AM


frako:
still you base you calculations on this logic: "there is to little of the substance compared to all other substances in the air to have an effect"
try taking one pixel of LSD compared to the pixel size of your body and then say there is to little of it to have any effect.
BarackZero responds:
Dear Frako,
How much is a "pixel" of LSD? You see, I represented a graph for purposes of displaying it on a computer, where everything is transmitted by pixels. Organic compounds are measured in micrograms, milligrams, and grams.
I fully understand the implications of trace amounts some substance can have on human physiology. One researcher died when her organomercuric compound leaked through her rubber glove. It acted as an enzyme.
But the topic of this thread, which I originated, is The Global Warming Scam. This scam always, begins with outrageous claims of the prophetic dangers of carbon dioxide. I put those concentrations into perspective, and everyone here has gone ballistic as a result.
Most unscientific of them.
Don't lecture ME on "logic" again. Tell me what you know about chemistry. Do that. But don't pretend that you know logic and I do not. It is a Big Lie perpetuated by scammers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by frako, posted 10-10-2010 8:08 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 10-10-2010 7:10 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2010 7:29 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2010 10:38 AM BarackZero has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 71 of 177 (585980)
10-10-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Graphs, a civil discussion
Hi BarackZero,
You're posting in a way that makes it seem like you didn't see the posts addressed to you in Message 39 and Message 40 in the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread, so I'm suspending you for one hour so that you have a chance to read them.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:29 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 72 of 177 (586000)
10-10-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:38 PM


But the topic of this thread, which I originated, is The Global Warming Scam. This scam always, begins with outrageous claims of the prophetic dangers of carbon dioxide. I put those concentrations into perspective, and everyone here has gone ballistic as a result.
well the way you put them in prespective is that a small amount compared to everything else in the atmosphere cannot efect the planet that much. i showed you why that is not true where small amounts compared to the total composition can have big efects.
if you wanted to argue that there is not a high enough man made increase of co2 in the atmosphere you should have said a kilo of co2 in the atmosphere retains xx amounts of heat there is not enough co2 to cause all this heat increase on our planet.
what you said was the amount of co2 in the atmosphere compared to everything else is to small to have an efect.
see the diference
while i do not belive co2 is the SOLE cause of global warming i belive it is one of the mayjor players. stoping flying and driving is not a solution, using carbon neutral fuels is but try telling that to the sakes that ern billions a year on oil and coal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:38 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 177 (586009)
10-10-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:38 PM


BarackZero writes:
Tell me what you know about chemistry.
People have been telling you about chemistry but so far you haven't addressed the point. Neither the absolute amount of CO2 nor the concentration of CO2 is particularly relevant. What matters is the effect of the CO2 regardless of how much there is.
If one person in a million is a terrorist, that's a pretty low concentration but it's still enough to bring down a skyscraper, which is a pretty significant effect. Similarly, a small concentration of CO2 is enough to cause a significant effect.
There's no scam here, only your misunderstanding of chemistry.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:38 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 74 of 177 (586010)
10-10-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:38 PM


Logic error...
BZero writes:
Don't lecture ME on "logic" again. Tell me what you know about chemistry. Do that. But don't pretend that you know logic and I do not. It is a Big Lie perpetuated by scammers.
Well, your argument does appear to have a logical flaw.
Proponents of man made climate change believe that tiny changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are correlated with and are indeed causally related to global temperature change.
There are a number of places to attack such a theory, but given that we agree on the size of the historical changes in CO2 levels, it really does not make much sense to attack by pointing out that the changes appear really tiny on a graph.
You've merely explained your personal reasons for incredulity, but you really haven't provided anything resembling a logical or scientific critique of CO2 induced climate change theory. Frako was completely correct to call you on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:38 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 177 (586021)
10-10-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Graphs, a civil discussion
{Why} Are tens, indeed hundreds of thousands of AGW naysayers perpetually flying and driving around and around and around the world to declare that flying and driving around the world is so deadly? Please answer that before you go on.
Presumably they believe the long term benefits for so doing outweigh the short term costs. But their alleged hypocrisy wouldn't prove AGW is a scam.
WHY are any and all attempts to illustrate what is misleading about AGW universally met with hateful condemnation, after the fashion of your beloved Omnivorous, who referred to me as a "teenager" unfit to "wipe Al Gore's ass"?
Presumably because the illustrations are often hatefully condemning themselves. Perhaps because it is the illustrations that are themselves misleading and people treat misleading things with hateful condemnation. Maybe they aren't being hatefully condemning but they are merely mocking someone who makes claims with an air of authority who also seems to making rudimentary reasoning errors.
Either way, if you are suggesting that they are hatefully condemning as a means of silencing the critics - then you've made an extraordinary claim. A) Saying things to someone else, jeering at them in writing, criticising them, does not silence them. Their words remain where they were.
B) It clearly hasn't worked, so why continue? AGW deniers have abundant avenues of communications, large numbers of people I work with have expressed doubts and have cited AGW authors as to their reasoning.
off topic rant about how I'm a bad person/moderator or have committed some wrong, along with others at the forum
Off topic. Please stick to the topic or do not continue to post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 6:29 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024