Search results

I already posted it. I don't have time to write it out again. Please read it it if your actually interested in what I think. I wouldn't mind having a real conversation about it with you.

I don't think your mind is feeble!?! I used an argument scheme by David Hume!!! WTF? Anyway, as I said, there is no way to know what really happened. I just know the official story isn't what happened. According to Wiki a truther thinks the government was involved. I don't think anything...

How odd. I explained the reasoning in my first post. I used an argument scheme created by David Hume. To refute it will require more than just reading my posts. I really (and honestly) don't think you're up to it Avro.

My stomach is starting to hurt I'm laughing so hard. OMFG this place is funny.

Alright,... First off: if you read my post you would know the answer to that; secondly: you didn't phrase your post in the form of a question. This will help

OK, I'll bite, what question is that Avro?

I'm waiting for a refutation. Sorry, big word again: the act or process of refuting).

Yeah... Um... OK.. That's what I thought. Here's a site you should check out you'll need crayons though Have fun :lol:

Huh... OK When someone resorts to ad hominem it's because they lack the intellectual capacity for refutation. So, if I'm wrong please refute my argument otherwise go colour something. lol

Try reading my post. :roll:

Alright, I'm done here. Evidently you hippies are going to believe whatever you want. I'm not sure what you're all getting out of this. Does it feel good to belong to a "special" green club? Perhaps you think you sound like experts or you think you're gaining some prestige? Perhaps you feel...

I made a general claim not a specific one. Try again.

Any argument must be logical to be valid. No knowledge whatever is needed to check the logic of an argument (except the knowledge of how to test the logic). If an argument is logical it doesn't follow that it is correct, but only that it could be. If an argument is not logical it does follow...

Where one finds anything these days: google. But here, I'll do the heavy lifting for you (again). List There are probably more but I expect they're driving taxis. More

There is no contradiction because I am talking about cause not effect :roll:

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers. I'm not going to explain logic to you. There are plenty of books you could read on the subject if you're interested, but I don't think that you are.

Well, it is certainly better than its alternative; of that any rational person must be certain. So some internal mechanism is causing us to over heat? The earth isn't the only solar body that is heating up, so yes! the sun must be heating up. You're right too, it is a natural cycle. The...

wow.... really!?!... OK Tonkahead :tard:

Then why would you compare it to a computer when, apparently, you know better? I already answered your question. But if I really have to spell my position out: I don't deny GW (as I already said). It is coming from the sun (as I already said). Your science is studying the sweater worn by...

By your logic then GW was made by science? Seriously!?! I'm not talking about anything made by science. AGW is inductive correlations and staged experiments (and computer models) fine tuned over time to give specific results a.k.a. "cooked." Seriously!?! It was a conclusion phrased like a...