[Pants-of-dog]

You'll be the first to know.

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

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.

[Victoribus Spolia]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Pants-of-dog]

You must have misread.

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

[Victoribus Spolia]

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

[Truth To Power]

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?

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

[Truth To Power]

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you did not quote facts.

Yes, they were independent even though they also agree with ACC.

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

So the first three minutes of that is just some guy complaining about news headlines. When does it actually discusss c,imate change?

[Sivad]

So the first three minutes of that is just some guy complaining about news headlines.

The first three minutes goes through the history of hysterical alarmist propaganda of the establishment media, and then he goes into how the findings of the IPCC report were politically negotiated. The rest of the video is about how climate change is being used by the ruling class technocracy to gain greater social, political, and economic control over world civilization.

[Pants-of-dog]

The first three minutes goes through the history of hysterical alarmist propaganda of the establishment media,

As far as I can tell, it shows newspapers doing what they always do: making hyperbolic headlines out of scientific papers that are actually quite mundane. They do this in order to make money.

and then he goes into how the findings of the IPCC report were politically negotiated.

What do you mean by “politically negotiated”?

The rest of the video is about how climate change is being used by the ruling class technocracy to gain greater social, political, and economic control over world civilization.

What is his evidence for this?

[Sivad]

What do you mean by “politically negotiated”?



What is his evidence for this?

Leave it to PoD to criticize a video he hasn't watched. Why is everything always so ridiculous with you?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Leave it to PoD to criticize a video he hasn't watched. Why is everything always so ridiculous with you?

One of the most common questions on PoFo.

[Pants-of-dog]

Leave it to PoD to criticize a video he hasn't watched. Why is everything always so ridiculous with you?

There are several reasons why I do not watch videos that supposedly refute my claims.

First of all, it is lazy. You are not putting together an argument. You are not even copying someone else’s argument and pasting it here. You are just copying and pasting a link to someone else’s argument with no effort on your part to show how it refutes or supports a point. It is all up to me to do that. I am not here to do your work for you,

The second thing is it is time consuming for me. I am expected to sit there and watch a video for however long in the hopes that it might be relevant. Maybe some is, maybe none of it is. Either way, I have stuff to do, and it is far faster for me to read a few pages in a PDF than it is to sit and focus on some random guy talking into a camera.

The third is that videos often do not support whatever claim is made. Once someone posted a video that was supposedly about how Muslims think Allah wants them to kill for Him. When you actually watch the video, it was about a Muslim immigrant explaining how Allah is omniscient and knows beforehand if you are going to kill someone, and some European guy heckling him.

Now, did he use the phrase “politically negotiated”, or did you? Either way, what does it mean?

[Sivad]

There are several reasons why I do not watch videos that supposedly refute my claims.

But you do ignorantly comment on videos you haven't watched, so again, why is everything always so ridiculous with you?

[Pants-of-dog]

But you do ignorantly comment on videos you haven't watched, so again, why is everything always so ridiculous with you?

I am not interested in your opinion about debating.

If you want to talk about climate change, I am here.

If not, have a good one.

[Truth To Power]

No, you did not quote facts.

I most certainly did.

Yes, they were independent even though they also agree with ACC.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you want to debate about the debate, go ahead. It seems to be all the rage today.

I am going to stick to the topic of ACC.