Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Debunking the AGW Theory?


BethesdaWX

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Bethesda,

If you don't agree with the basic premise of the paper, i.e. that the greenhouse effect is not real and that CO2 is a coolant, then why would you post it? Why would you associate your name with it on this forum?

Your credibility has taken a deep hit. The only motivation I can thinks of is that you share the intent of the author. That being to further confuse the public understanding of climate change, the greenhouse effect and AGW.

Every forum covering AGW has someone like you on it. They all do the same thing. They overwhelm the forum with garbage and disrupt any attempt at meaningful discussion. An interested, uninitiated passer by of this or other forums is greeted by your seemingly coherent, plausible sounding arguments and leaves thinking there must be this huge disagreement in the field of climate change.

A true scientific discussion forum would not allow this to occur. You and all of us would be required to cite the peer-reviewed literature when make any claims. I have participated in them and the lack of freedom is difficult and stymies free and open discussion. You are taking undue advantage of your freedom to spew garbage and misinform the public . Shame on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good idea. I think in the future I'll start lots of threads about articles I haven't even examined. That's a way to get healthy discussion on a messageboard.

I'm trying to discern this from "science" that I've been taught and have learned. This paper does not abide by those standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the paper out of mild interest at 230AM in the morning.

Skiers Idea that I post "skaptic blog articles" it botched, he should say I post "peer reviewed skeptical articles". He is notorious for bending the facts.

I garuntee you if you read back in the CC forum, you'll see all the sources I use to support my argument are peer reviewed, not some scientists paper that was published april 10th that I had no idea about until 2 nights ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted it out mild interest. if you don't like it, DONT READ IT.

Its that easy, and you wouldn't be posting on a WX board during your work hours.

How can you have mild interest in something that you didn't actually read?

She wouldn't be posting on a wx board during work hours? what does that even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bethesda,

If you don't agree with the basic premise of the paper, i.e. that the greenhouse effect is not real and that CO2 is a coolant, then why would you post it? Why would you associate your name with it on this forum?

Your credibility has taken a deep hit. The only motivation I can thinks of is that you share the intent of the author. That being to further confuse the public understanding of climate change, the greenhouse effect and AGW.

Every forum covering AGW has someone like you on it. They all do the same thing. They overwhelm the forum with garbage and disrupt any attempt at meaningful discussion. An interested, uninitiated passer by of this or other forums is greeted by your seemingly coherent, plausible sounding arguments and leaves thinking there must be this huge disagreement in the field of climate change.

A true scientific discussion forum would not allow this to occur. You and all of us would be required to cite the peer-reviewed literature when make any claims. I have participated in them and the lack of freedom is difficult and stymies free and open discussion. You are taking undue advantage of your freedom to spew garbage and misinform the public . Shame on you.

BUMP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What'd you find interesting? Just the few words in the title that you skimmed?

Kind of, and the fact that it looked like actual science was done. I just brushed through it and posted it. But It's funny how that amuses people here.

But that "science" may have been achieved through several starting miscalculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of, and the fact that it looked like actual science was done. I just brushed through it and posted it. But It's funny how that amuses people here.

But that "science" may have been achieved through several starting miscalculations.

Your rush to post it is the same reason you are villified in the MA forum. No thought is given before the post button is hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of, and the fact that it looked like actual science was done. I just brushed through it and posted it. But It's funny how that amuses people here.

But that "science" may have been achieved through several starting miscalculations.

I thought you said you didn't read it at all? Now you've "brushed through it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading it is not the same as giving it a skim, I copy pasted the procedure & conclusion & linked it.

I didn't "read" it.

You remind me of a puppy - you act up because you know it will get you attention, even if its negative attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...