[sasquatch2]

Bluenose is a poster boy for the principlr to get into university you don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader.

[BartSimpson]

BN, I posted something that Nomure was able to see through immediately.

You, on the other hand, made the time-honored mistake of young men your age who think too much of themselves and not enough of their adversaries.

Not to worry, give it forty years and you'll join the ranks of the old men who think too little of themselves and too much of their adversaries.

[Blue_Nose]

...so says the old trucker who may or may not have made it to fifth grade.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BN, I posted something that Nomure was able to see through immediately.

No Numure claimed that there's a theory that proposes that global warming may cause subsequent cooling.

That has nothing to do with the cool snap NOW that hasn't been affected by the Gulf Stream stopping, by the simple fact that there's no indication that the Gulf Stream has stopped.

See, you can't even understand the arguments you agree with!

edit: from Numure's link:

$1:

The majority of climate scientist believe that a critical change in the THC is unlikely to occur during this century

Poor, stupid Bart. Try again.

[sasquatch2]

Bluenose

$1:

...so says the old trucker who may or may not have made it to fifth grade.

As he claims superiority over someone who draws a bigger paycheck than you can ever realistically anticipate. HA HA! That's just why I don't practice law.....dummy.

Bluenose

$1:

BartSimpson

$1:

The majority of climate scientist believe that a critical change in the THC is unlikely to occur during this century

Poor, stupid Bart. Try again.

Bluenose is so uninformed he thinks THC is something you smoke.

What a hockey puck.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Bluenose

$1:

...so says the old trucker who may or may not have made it to fifth grade.

As he claims superiority over someone who draws a bigger paycheck than you can ever realistically anticipate. HA HA! That's just why I don't practice law.....dummy.

Someone who can't simply defend their claims calling others 'dummy' rings a little hollow.

Sorry - paycheques don't make you any smarter.

[sasquatch2]

Bluenose

$1:

Sorry - paycheques don't make you any smarter.

Nuff said---thanks.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Bluenose is so uninformed he thinks THC is something you smoke.

What a hockey puck.

You put a lot of effort into avoiding the real issues - if you wanted to make me look as dumb as you claim I am, why not address the points I raised concerning your "proof"? I layed it out plainly for you in the other thread.

You're just making a fool of yourself as it is. Post something relevant.

[BartSimpson]

BN,
My original goal in this thread was to troll for someone stupid enough to engage me on a more or less trivial non-topic.

You knew my opinions about AGW before you ever saw this thread.

I can't imagine that you could take my embracing AGW seriously.

And you call me a coward and a moron yet you haven't bothered to look in the mirror and ask why an accomplished and worldly young man of the ripe old age of 23 is putting so much effort into arguing with someone who is supposedly beneath him?

Let me ask you, genius, what are you trying to accomplish here besides making an ass out of yourself by going round in circles with me?

Maybe you may have made me look silly back on page two or three. But the last six pages are no more and no less than you being made an ass by your own serious participation in a thread that was, from the start, a clear exercise in nonsense.

Here. let me put this in simple terms: If you're so bleepin' smart then why are you arguing with me?

[2Cdo]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BN,
My original goal in this thread was to troll for someone stupid enough to engage me on a more or less trivial non-topic.

You knew my opinions about AGW before you ever saw this thread.

I can't imagine that you could take my embracing AGW seriously.

And you call me a coward and a moron yet you haven't bothered to look in the mirror and ask why an accomplished and worldly young man of the ripe old age of 23 is putting so much effort into arguing with someone who is supposedly beneath him?

Let me ask you, genius, what are you trying to accomplish here besides making an ass out of yourself by going round in circles with me?

Maybe you may have made me look silly back on page two or three. But the last six pages are no more and no less than you being made an ass by your own serious participation in a thread that was, from the start, a clear exercise in nonsense.

Here. let me put this in simple terms: If you're so bleepin' smart then why are you arguing with me?

Now that's funny!

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

AGW must be valid and true all the time in every circumstance or else it is not valid and true.

If it is only valid during the summer then the most likely cause of heat would be summer.

AGW is a theory. All that it need be is more applicable than any other existing theory. "truth in science" is a yet another propagnada tool invented by the (primarily Christian) right to attack science (witness, for example, the junksceince.com contest to "prove" climate change). Natural science is about probabilities and uncertainties; there are no absolute truths.

For the theory to remain valid, it must, as you say, explain every real phenomenon, otherwise the theory must be discarded or changed. The theory of climate change is that the imapct of heat being reradiated groundward due to an increase of CO2 and other greenhouses gases is making the planet warmer over the long term.

$1:

AGW proponents don't get the intellectual right to claim that unusual instances of warming are attributable to AGW while conveniently ignoring unusual instances of cooling.

Correct, they do not.

$1:

You other folks here are making the point that Sasquatch has repeatedly made that AGW proponents cherry pick their "evidence" by ignoring or discounting cooling trends and events.

Yes, Fiddledog made the same claim, but couldn't really back it up. How do you reconcile your position with the observation that he vast majority of scientists doing research in relavent fields disagree wiht you? The current warming and current CO2 concentrations does not fit any known trends in any of the time scales it is being measured on, or in any of the known patterns of history, according to most researchers.

$1:

It is completely counterintuitive and it is completely silly on first blush, but if you're going to argue in favour of AGW at all then you MUST consistently attribute AGW effects to all unusual weather events.

Agreed. The climate change theory must match observatiosn and must have predictive ability in order for it to remain a valid theory. So far, though, no one has been able to knock it off its perch.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BN,
My original goal in this thread was to troll for someone stupid enough to engage me on a more or less trivial non-topic.

You knew my opinions about AGW before you ever saw this thread.

I can't imagine that you could take my embracing AGW seriously.

And you call me a coward and a moron yet you haven't bothered to look in the mirror and ask why an accomplished and worldly young man of the ripe old age of 23 is putting so much effort into arguing with someone who is supposedly beneath him?

Maybe because there's too much misinformation on the subject being thrown around? Maybe because I get bored of grading this stack of undergrad assignments? Maybe you need to be exposed for the blatant fraud you are, and it was no trouble doing so? Probably a little of all three.

Go ahead, sneer at my age - I brought it up to highlight your failings.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Maybe you may have made me look silly back on page two or three. But the last six pages are no more and no less than you being made an ass by your own serious participation in a thread that was, from the start, a clear exercise in nonsense.

Your intentions were to set up a strawman argument against global warming and then mock it. I'm here to set the record straight.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Here. let me put this in simple terms: If you're so bleepin' smart then why are you arguing with me?

You have yet to own up to the fact that you're promoting misinformation that you don't understand. I've got enough integrity for myself that I would want to be informed when I'm gravely incorrect, and so should you. You haven't received the message yet, apparently.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Your intentions were to set up a strawman argument against global warming

No, I set up a straw man argument in support of global warming.

I'm surprised that you needed to have that spelled out to you, Mr. I-can-grade-undergrad-papers.

Sasquatch got that right off the bat. And you accuse him of being slow.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It is completely counterintuitive and it is completely silly on first blush, but if you're going to argue in favour of AGW at all then you MUST consistently attribute AGW effects to all unusual weather events.

Agreed. The climate change theory must match observatiosn and must have predictive ability in order for it to remain a valid theory. So far, though, no one has been able to knock it off its perch.

Zip gets it.

[Blue_Nose]

You're not supporting it when you intentionally make erroneous claims in favour of an argument you're attempting to refute. You knew perfectly well your arguments made no sense. That's what a strawman is. You're not fooling anyone, tard.

You've had these "supportive" errors spelled out a number of times - why can't you defend them?