[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's not a myth.

Derby presetned evidence otherwise that has yet to be refuted. Derby presenmted evidence of the number of papers written on teh subject of global cooling vs warming. You present one paper.

I find Derby's evidence more convincing.

Derby said that global cooling theory was a myth. I posted the definitive reference on the topic that cites no less than James Hansen as a contributor.

Derby has not presented evidence that this paper was not published in 1971 and he has not presented evidence that NASA and the same cabal that now push global warming did not push global cooling forty years ago.

And since you decided to jump into this, do you assert that Hansen was wrong in 1971?

[hurley_108]

desertdude desertdude:

You try to act all smart and well informed but the kind of language you use really doesn't help with your online persona, no matter how many pictures of freud you post in your avatar or try to bedazzle with you vocabulary gymnastics.

Freud!?!? All I see is a sexy lady in the smoke....

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Derby, can't admit you were wrong, eh?

Funny that you will put more stock in a single paper then a considerable number more of papers saying something else.

Do you have your dunce cap on? You said that global cooling theory was a myth and I proved you wrong and now you're too dogmatic to admit it.

And you wonder why people like myself dismiss you and yours as cultists and not scientists because you freely dismiss any fact that you find inconvenient.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's not a myth.

Derby presetned evidence otherwise that has yet to be refuted. Derby presenmted evidence of the number of papers written on teh subject of global cooling vs warming. You present one paper.

I find Derby's evidence more convincing.

Derby said that global cooling theory was a myth. I posted the definitive reference on the topic that cites no less than James Hansen as a contributor.

Derby has not presented evidence that this paper was not published in 1971 and he has not presented evidence that NASA and the same cabal that now push global warming did not push global cooling forty years ago.

And since you decided to jump into this, do you assert that Hansen was wrong in 1971?

I said it was a myth because you and others have always maintained it was a well established theory supported by a majority of scientists just like global warming is today.

Face it. You were wrong and are attempting to make the strawman argument that because one scientist was wrong then therefore they all must be.

You refuse to admit you might be wrong despite having no evidence to support your position.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Derby, can't admit you were wrong, eh?

Funny that you will put more stock in a single paper then a considerable number more of papers saying something else.

Do you have your dunce cap on? You said that global cooling theory was a myth and I proved you wrong and now you're too dogmatic to admit it.

No, you made a straw-man argument and Derby clarified to refute it. Point to Derby.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Derby, can't admit you were wrong, eh?

Funny that you will put more stock in a single paper then a considerable number more of papers saying something else.

Do you have your dunce cap on? You said that global cooling theory was a myth and I proved you wrong and now you're too dogmatic to admit it.

And you wonder why people like myself dismiss you and yours as cultists and not scientists because you freely dismiss any fact that you find inconvenient.

I have explained that and your argumentative fallacy. That you can't see it is because you are so dogmatic in your belief you will refute all the evidence as part of the conspiracy just like creationism and moon hoaxes and 9/11 hoaxes.

I'll take the resounding peer-reviewed science over your uniformed opinion.

[Zipperfish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

desertdude desertdude:

You try to act all smart and well informed but the kind of language you use really doesn't help with your online persona, no matter how many pictures of freud you post in your avatar or try to bedazzle with you vocabulary gymnastics.

Freud!?!? All I see is a sexy lady in the smoke....

All I see is a planet in flames!

[DerbyX]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No, you made a straw-man argument and Derby clarified to refute it. Point to Derby.

Scientific consensus that Bart is wrong.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I have explained that and your argumentative fallacy. That you can't see it is because you are so dogmatic in your belief you will refute all the evidence as part of the conspiracy just like creationism and moon hoaxes and 9/11 hoaxes.

I'll take the resounding peer-reviewed science over your uniformed opinion.

I see. So when you lose an argument your new tactic is to pretend that we were discussing something else.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

I have explained that and your argumentative fallacy. That you can't see it is because you are so dogmatic in your belief you will refute all the evidence as part of the conspiracy just like creationism and moon hoaxes and 9/11 hoaxes.

I'll take the resounding peer-reviewed science over your uniformed opinion.

I see. So when you lose an argument your new tactic is to pretend that we were discussing something else.

As opposed to yours of starting side-bar threads on red herrings to draw attention away from where you're losing?

[BartSimpson]

Derby, hope you like my new siggy.

[DrCaleb]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'll take the resounding peer-reviewed science over your uniformed opinion.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... n-t-matter

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

I have explained that and your argumentative fallacy. That you can't see it is because you are so dogmatic in your belief you will refute all the evidence as part of the conspiracy just like creationism and moon hoaxes and 9/11 hoaxes.

I'll take the resounding peer-reviewed science over your uniformed opinion.

I see. So when you lose an argument your new tactic is to pretend that we were discussing something else.

Nope. I explained it quite clearly. I explained that it was a myth that in the 70s scientists were predicting global cooling. I explained that myth came largely from the Newsweek and Time magazine articles. I clearly referenced the myth as the one perpetrated today by AGW deniers namely that scientists back then were predicting global cooling like todays scientists are predicting global warming. That argument implied a scientific consensus. I showed that far from that believe the number of papers predicting warming vs cooling showed the opposite and that it has only greatly increased.

You are doing nothing less then attempting to make the strawman argument that because a few scientists may have predicted global cooling then it casts doubt on the theories of todays scientists and you cited a single paper from 1971, the very dawn of the whole debate.

The fact remains their was no scientific consensus back then over global cooling unlike today over global warming.

[BartSimpson]

See my signature for the original quote I was responding to. Get back to me when you're able to comprehend what you wrote.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

See my signature for the original quote I was responding to. Get back to me when you're able to comprehend what you wrote.

I did. Get back to me when you manage to decipher the rest of the argument. So many other people seem to have no problem with comprehension.