Simpler Question About AGW

[rockoon]

You've not shown any indication that you have even a basic understanding of the issues in this case.

The issue in this case is what AGW proponents believe.

Not only did I show understanding of what some AGW proponents believe, I got you to provide evidence that you too believe what I demonstrated.

You believe that GW is the same thing as AGW.

You are wrong.

Your rant has done absolutely nothing for your case.

I'm really sorry that immediately after I posted about a phenomenon here on these forums, that you replied to that very message and proceded to demonstrate it.

Good stuff.

Your behavior has been identified as being nearly identical to that of the creationists, on at least one occasion.

You do realize that you are violating a forum rule right now, correct?

The reson for this rule is that behavior such as yours is known to not be condusive to a rational discourse about a topic.

In this case the thread topic is what AGW proponents believe and claim.

I get the feeling that you'd prefer to distance yourself from the creationists. I don't blame you... but it also makes your own position seem more obviously foolish.

Is there logic in there?

I distance myself from creationists both because I am not a creationist, and because this topic is not about creationism. I am an athiest and this topic is about what AGW proponents believe and claim.

I understand why you want it to be about creationism, which is why you continualy bring it up in AGW threads. I truely do understand. You dont know the AGW subject very well but still insist on being very vocal about it, so you have to change the subject and try to undermine the arguementor, rather than his arguement. A violation of forum rules I might add. (Membership agreement bullet #12)

 

[JoeEllison]

The issue in this case is what AGW proponents believe.

Not only did I show understanding of what some AGW proponents believe, I got you to provide evidence that you too believe what I demonstrated.

You believe that GW is the same thing as AGW.

You are wrong.



I'm really sorry that immediately after I posted about a phenomenon here on these forums, that you replied to that very message and proceded to demonstrate it.

Good stuff.



You do realize that you are violating a forum rule right now, correct?

The reson for this rule is that behavior such as yours is known to not be condusive to a rational discourse about a topic.

In this case the thread topic is what AGW proponents believe and claim.



Is there logic in there?

I distance myself from creationists both because I am not a creationist, and because this topic is not about creationism. I am an athiest and this topic is about what AGW proponents believe and claim.

I understand why you want it to be about creationism, which is why you continualy bring it up in AGW threads. I truely do understand. You dont know the AGW subject very well but still insist on being very vocal about it, so you have to change the subject and try to undermine the arguementor, rather than his arguement. A violation of forum rules I might add. (Membership agreement bullet #12)

You didn't comment on the projection part of my post, although you engaged in that behavior throughout your entire post... and no coincidence.

Again, thank you for proving my point. The more you post, the more I have to work with.

 

[Cuddles]

Once again, the global warming threads are filling up with personal attacks and bickering. Stop it, or there's going to be an awful lot of posts heading to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'm sorry that happened. I liked him even if I never agreed with him.

Please let it not be true. A funnier caricature of an ignorant right-wing bigot would be hard to find.

What does it take to get banned here anyway? Are there certain trigger words?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Replace "GW" and "AGW" with "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and this argument is nearly identical to what a creationist would say.

Thanks, rockoon. I appreciate having your post as further confirmation that AGW denial is the same sort of woo as creationism.

Another comparison would with belief in psychics. No matter how often they are debunked, discredited, or exposed as frauds, believers keep saying that, well OK he/she might be a fraud, but this one is honest and is the real thing.

Of course, all the while they accuse anyone sceptical of paranormal claims of being close-minded dogmatists!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Such a replacement would be dishonest.



Being dishonest with yourself is the worst form of it.

*******

Joe Ellison is infact one of the more vocal proponents of AGW here on these forums.

Does Joe know that microevolution and macroevolution are two terms for the same thing?

I think that he does.

Therefore I also think that Joe thinks that GW and AGW are two terms for the same thing.

I rest my case. Some vocal AGW proponents commonly confuse GW with AGW because they truely believe that it is the same thing. This certainly leaves the impression that many AGW proponents also cannot make the distinction, because the vocalness of AGW proponents appears to be proportional to their ignorance.

Good stuff.

Hmmm. I can't decide whether this strawman is deliberate or the result of stupidity. So hard to tell with some...