I must have read something that said you were and missed your rebuke.
Fair enough.
You just know more than me right? lol Karrie already said that :lol:
I have no idea how much you know. I know very little about you. All I do know is that you use lots of fallacies, and your logic suffers because of that.
Wow dude, your really stretching here. Carbon isn't causing our warming (proved by models and experiments)
Not really. I'm assuming you didn't read through any of Weart's material?
other planets and bodies are warming too but there is absolutely no way possible unimagined or undiscovered or otherwise that the events could be connected? There is just no way in your mind?
There's a huge difference between saying something that you have mentioned many times is false and unsupported, and saying something isn't possible. I never said it wasn't possible. It doesn't look likely, but that's what statistics are for.
STOP! That's my point. I don't have a hypothesis, I don't have a theory - all I have is correlation and I admit it.
Of course you have a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that some unknown factor is causing the warming on this planet as well as Mars and Jupiter and some satellites. That is a very common sense hypothesis. But it's wrong.
I am not making up BS to panic everyone with tales of huge energy waves or the sun getting ready to explode or whatever...
Because I have no proof of anything and neither do you.
You are making up BS. You're making it up all the time when you purport on these pages to know what all the models say, what they "only have to do to...", what experiments have proved theories wrong, all of it unwarranted.
In fact, the only real disproof you attempted with the greenhouse theory was a magazine article written by Pat Frank, an article that is hilariously out of touch with how things are attributed, and counted for that matter.
I wouldn't know. I threw out my damn TV and I won't have one of those propaganda boxes in my house!
So, in all your time on the internet, or new age propaganda boxes, you've never encountered news stories from Fox News?
That's besides the point anyways. My point is, that popular media, whether television, printed, or electronic, says things all the time that aren't true. There's no filter, there's more opinion-editorializing than anything else.
Why do you think the Al Gore ad hominem is so prevalent?
That's your opinion. Have you considered that you mostly miss my points?
Have you considered that you're missing the point entirely? I know I've reread some of your posts multiple times to make sure I interpreted what you had said correctly. Some of it makes no sense whatsoever, both linguistically and on the content of your messages.
What have you done?
Even if the experiments and models invalidate that method?
That's some strange science indeed.
So, you think that experiments and models can invalidate the scientific method? Just to be sure, I was basically defining the scientific method. Models follow that same method.
It's not strange at all. That's how science began, and continues to this day.
I agree if we are talking about science in its ideal form, however, there are plenty of parallels that can be found in science as culture and particularly science as political culture.
The further away you get from ideal, or normalised science, the less it resembles science. I simply don't think it's a valid comparison at all. Science isn't you and I quoting some finding. We can talk about science, but there's no investigation there. It's probe to popularity contests. Just like religion is. That's one similarity, but is far and apart from science.
Now you're talking about human psychology. It's not science that begins to resemble Christianity, it's the cultural/economic/societal modes of human interaction and function that do that.
I don't believe in anything. You, me, these computers we talk through are not "real."
That's pretty damn ironic. Your idea that you, me, and these computers are not "real", is a belief. :lol:
I seek the advice of experts whenever I can actually and on just about every topic.
So, what experts have you sought out on this?
Now that I've pointed it out you can claim you already understood that. "ah but I did" you say. Well good for you I say.
I did. I started a freaking thread on this subject.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/s...debatable-scientific-questions-debatable.html
Your making some pretty big assumptions here. Things aren't always what they seem.
Assuming that science will progress as it has, even if you stop respecting it? I'm comfortable with that assumption.
Yes, I know you like ad hominems. I've mentioned that before, and I have little use for them.
