Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 10. (Read 7367 times)

Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data.

Your logical fallacy is...

it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data.

How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas?

Besides, that's a rather interesting statement coming from you. Please address your idol's stance within the context of your request:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uEFv4_OGY_o#t=143s

If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address yours. And then we can move on to round two. And so on.

Furthermore, I have recommended two good books to you, one of which demonstrates the value of climate science by way of various EPA projects which have had measurable success, along with many other things, and an excellent book on climate change in general. You declined to read them, so I decline to read your article.

Furthermore, I noted a comment you made in another thread about climate change and its relation to the Sun. Where did you get such information? Do you really understand the causes of ice ages?

Your logical fallacy is...

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

This is hilarious. I actually enjoy it when you guys do this. First of all, it shows that you guys use as your sources for information of climate change sites linked with libertarian think tanks. Why is that? There are neutral sites which report on science.

Your buddy Anthony Watts is a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, shown time and again to be biased against climate science and climate change for political reasons (property rights in fact - note the editor of Environment and Climate News is an advocate for property rights and has zero credentials with regard to the environment or climate science), not scientific honesty. Funding, of course, comes from Exxon/Mobil. Also, note that Anthony Watts holds no credentials with regard to climate science, and readily admits so. What he does is trawl the Internet for that one nugget among thousands of peer reviewed papers that supports what his Libertarian mindset wants to see. Biased reporting, indeed.

As for me having a stroke, sorry, no. I'm glad you made the post though, as it confirms my accusations that libertarians must have their science news strained through a filter designed to only let news through which meets their libertarian perspective. Kind of like a religion.

Climate science is to libertarians like Evolution is to Creationists.

Should you pay his medical bill for the stroke?
Naaa he deserved it

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/


Conniption fit in 3...2...1...