Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Boston]

Ah the semantic argument.

A slightly less popular denialist tactic but its catchy. No Dave I don't think the definition of radical does include a direct reference to the term credentials, but then again the definition of denial doesn't directly reference atmospheric sciences either. Doesn't mean they can't apply tho.

Although the far right with its various "radical" views certainly might be considered somewhat "daft"

Daft
adjective

silly; foolish
insane; crazy
SCOT. merry or frolicsome in a giddy way
Related Forms:

daftly adverb
daftness noun

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by Boston

Ah the semantic argument.

A slightly less popular denialist tactic but its catchy. No Dave I don't think the definition of radical does include a direct reference to the term credentials, but then again the definition of denial doesn't directly reference atmospheric sciences either. Doesn't mean they can't apply tho.

Although the far right with its various "radical" views certainly might be considered somewhat "daft"

You know, Boston, you argue like a 10-year-old. I really wonder what you get out of your childish taunts and pathetic squirming to admit when you are caught in a mistake. Surely you can't be so delusional as to think that it makes you look good.

Maybe it's just displaced hostility --you like to feel like you are beating people up on the internet and that makes you a tough guy. But that would be even more pathetic. Well-adjusted adults like myself and Hoyt don't get our feelings hurt by childish taunts, and I would think that you would know that. So what exactly is the point of it? Do you just want to look childish?

[Boston]

I'm pretty sure they call that projection Dave. Or in political terms, double speak, accuse the other guy of exactly what you yourself are doing. Seems to be a standard tactic of the deniers squad.

If your actually interested in knowing what I"m on about, its called Rapid Global Climate Shift. I'd be happy to discuss it if you'd like to, check the tittle of the thread, simply dancing around the issue isn't going to cut it, which is one reason I respond so sarcastically to the denialist diatribe. I consider the issue extremely important, its pretty much a mater of do we survive or not. And not in some far off time frame either, we're talking about the point of no return coming up fast. In this article its quoted as being by about 2017.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ri8M_blog.html

as the IEA found, we’re about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructure to lock us in and make it extremely difficult — maybe impossible — to avoid 450 ppm. The point of no return comes around 2017. Here’s a chart to visualize it:

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Dave Gudeman

You know, Boston, you argue like a 10-year-old. I really wonder what you get out of your childish taunts and pathetic squirming to admit when you are caught in a mistake. Surely you can't be so delusional as to think that it makes you look good.

Maybe it's just displaced hostility --you like to feel like you are beating people up on the internet and that makes you a tough guy. But that would be even more pathetic. Well-adjusted adults like myself and Hoyt don't get our feelings hurt by childish taunts, and I would think that you would know that. So what exactly is the point of it? Do you just want to look childish?

How dare you call me well-adjusted! I have never ever been to a chiropractor!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic

Old Man Boston had a farm IE IEA!
And on that farm he was a clown IE IEA!
With a spritz-honk here and a spritz-honk there
Here a spritz there a spritz
Does anyone even give a 5h1tz 5h1tz?
Boston is quite full of brown IE IEA!

You can sing along to the melody here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8mS4Nj052M

[Boston]

and I'm the one who argues like a ten year old ?

[Submarine Tom]

Maybe you're both wrong...

-Tom

[Boston]

97% consensus is pretty convincing Tom.
theory of gravity doesn't hold that high a degree of agreement

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Dave Gudeman

You know, Boston, you argue like a 10-year-old. I really wonder what you get out of your childish taunts and pathetic squirming to admit when you are caught in a mistake. Surely you can't be so delusional as to think that it makes you look good.

Maybe it's just displaced hostility --you like to feel like you are beating people up on the internet and that makes you a tough guy. But that would be even more pathetic. Well-adjusted adults like myself and Hoyt don't get our feelings hurt by childish taunts, and I would think that you would know that. So what exactly is the point of it? Do you just want to look childish?

Don't let him fool you, Boston. As a veteran of some prolonged discussions with Dave on various subjects, I can assure you he's incredibly thin-skinned - and quick to take personal offense, if one of his arguments is rejected. He'll accuse you of demonizing him or calling him a Nazi at the drop of a hat....

[hoytedow]

The more of this crap you dish out the thinner our skins are going to get from you and your circular arguments spinning like a sanding disc wearing away the dermis.

eieio.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

The more of this crap you dish out the thinner our skins are going to get from you and your circular arguments spinning like a sanding disc wearing away the dermis.

eieio.

I'm not worried about you, Hoyt. I suspect you have a hide like a rhinoceros.

[hoytedow]

And a horn like one too. It plays eieio.

[RayThackeray]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

The more of this crap you dish out the thinner our skins are going to get from you and your circular arguments spinning like a sanding disc wearing away the dermis.

eieio.

This is so far beyond the pot calling the kettle black I barely know where to start. While you may not agree with Boston, at least he has been totally consistent in presenting the scientific evidence as accepted by ALL universities, the vast majority of climatologists, authorities, courts and governments, and logically and with evidence done his best to falsify anything you've presented so far - while you have been totally unable to refute a single one of his arguments without shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "nyah nyah nyah I don't believe you", and screaming that there's a vast global conspiracy without a shred of evidence to support your position. Now who's childish?

[hoytedow]

So (almost, but not) all universities have an ax to grind with their hands deep in the pockets of the American taxpayer. Those grants depend on saying the right things to the money givers in order to get the grants. No politics there, huh? No conflict of interest either, huh? Totally objective, huh? Crap, huh?

You will note that the scientists listed below do in fact have the names of the institutions for which they work listed after their names, at least until they are black-balled by the administrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

[Submarine Tom]

Of course you both could be right!

-Tom

[Boston]

and Hoyt comes back with the "its a conspiracy" angle again

why am I not surprised

Tom
I'm curious, in what way could we both be right?