If Global Warming Is Real, I Want It. - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14952610
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You'll be the first to know.

Also, you should probably ignore me and get back to getting refuted by @Truth To Power.

:lol:


Since you conceded the four arguments I made, I have no idea why you are still in this thread.

TTP is still working on his conspiracy theory about how the eight climategate inquiries were not actually independent.
#14952618
Pants-of-dog wrote:You must have misread.

Each of those four arguments was made as a rebuttal to actual claims in this thread.


You must have misstated then, because you said I made a concession somewhere.

I don't see any concession.
#14952620
When you “clarified” that you were only claiming that climate changes are all the same if we ignore all the differences, then I pointed out that this means that you were not contesting my arguments about the actual current global warming and the actual real differences between modern ACC and previous climate changes.
#14952890
Pants-of-dog wrote:So anyone who believes that ACC is a thing is automatically part of the conspiracy and willingly hides the nefarious lies of climatologists?

No, that is just another of your strawman fallacies; but commissions of inquiry populated by such people are not independent, which was the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
The only that quote says is that Clive Crook thinks the inquiries were wrong.

Wrong. It says they were wrong because they were biased -- i.e., not independent. Which was the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
It does not say they were not independent.

But it provides EVIDENCE that they were not, which is the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
This does not mean that the second UEA investigation was not independent.

But it provides additional EVIDENCE that it was not, which is what you requested I provide. Remember?
It also ignores the fact that the UEA made two investigations: one about whether or not there was evidence of collusion in the emails, and the second re-reviewing the CRU papaers that had laredy been published.

Irrelevant. It is still evidence that the investigation was not independent, which is the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
Lord Oxburgh chaired the latter.

That's what I said.
The former (i.e. the one that is actually about your claim) was chaired by Muir Russell.

And...?
An editorial from a noted denialist is not evidence.

The FACTS he identifies in support of his views ARE evidence. Which is what you requested.

REMEMBER???

As previously mentioned, you simply have an idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes evidence, one qualification of which is that it not disprove any of your false beliefs.
At best, it would be a first step to finding evidence.

No, that is a bald falsehood. He states definite facts that provide evidence that the inquiries were not independent.

Which is what you requested, and I provided.

Clear?
#14952907
Truth To Power wrote:No, that is just another of your strawman fallacies; but commissions of inquiry populated by such people are not independent, which was the point you requested evidence for. Remember?

Wrong. It says they were wrong because they were biased -- i.e., not independent. Which was the point you requested evidence for. Remember?

But it provides EVIDENCE that they were not, which is the point you requested evidence for. Remember?

But it provides additional EVIDENCE that it was not, which is what you requested I provide. Remember?

Irrelevant. It is still evidence that the investigation was not independent, which is the point you requested evidence for. Remember?

That's what I said.

And...?

The FACTS he identifies in support of his views ARE evidence. Which is what you requested.

REMEMBER???

As previously mentioned, you simply have an idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes evidence, one qualification of which is that it not disprove any of your false beliefs.

No, that is a bald falsehood. He states definite facts that provide evidence that the inquiries were not independent.

Which is what you requested, and I provided.

Clear?


You posted two editorials. Editorials are opinion pieces. The opinions of those two authors are not facts.

If you want to discuss facts, please quote the relevant facts from those opinion pieces.

And no, the mere fact that they agree with ACC theory does not mean that they are not independent.
#14953097
Pants-of-dog wrote:You posted two editorials.

No, you are as usual just factually incorrect. I posted quotes from and links to one editorial and one article. There are lots more where those came from, but as you demonstrate so very eloquently below, it is a waste of time to post facts that disprove your opinions.
Editorials are opinion pieces.

But good ones, which that one is, support their opinions with facts, which that one does.
The opinions of those two authors are not facts.

But the FACTS they provide in support of their opinions ARE facts. See how that works?
If you want to discuss facts, please quote the relevant facts from those opinion pieces.

I already quoted facts, as you know very well; you ignored them and called them opinions. As usual.
And no, the mere fact that they agree with ACC theory does not mean that they are not independent.

Yes, actually, it most certainy does. Independent inquiries would have consisted of -- and certainly been led by -- people with no dogs in the hunt.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

Fascism isn't coming to America only, it's coming[…]

So we agree that it would be illogical to arm ou[…]

I wonder how much money the Trumps will make from […]

You started the tariff discussion. I'm just askin[…]