Search results

Plausible denyability.... Ironic, no?

Don't confuse a basic question for a retarded answer.

Maybe Suzuki got the intro to H&K from the mining companies that he invests in.

Ahhhh.. But their theories aren't really wrong... Well kinda. You see, those statements were made using the old baseline. Since then, things have, well, uh, changed... Now we know different and ultimately, because those salmon will eventually die, we can say conclusively it was because they...

That isn't too hard when it pre-determined that the results must fit the theory When in doubt, convince everyone that "they just don't understand". Failing that, revert to calling them a "denier"

No. You gave me excuses

I guess that I made up the part about multiple baselines, eh? Man, you've really sunk to a new low buddy

The irony is poetic; the abject denial of the existence of a basic and obvious flaw in your logic and the pre-programmed response is to throw out the Green-Messiah-Approved moniker of denier! Generating results based on a moving baseline and fitting the theory to "predict" the results is high...

You still don't get it, do you? You are making them fit together the same way that you can make a puzzle piece fit with a hammer. Is this the way your approach your research job? Do you fit the results to the theory and claim success?

Those were the words you eventually posted after ducking the issue umpteen times, but the message was clear: The greenie AGW theories are too flimsy and baseless to address a system as complex as the Earths climatic system. Your "multiple baselines" is your way of saying that every so often...

A post about basic physics is it?.. Tell me Commander, how do the legions of your tin-foil hatters actually apply physics in this debate other than in fabricating climate models, etc.? I asked your buddy about an issue directly related to this and once all of his ducking and weaving was...

I should have invoked more applicable words as I know that you make your arguments on splitting hairs... There is no cohesive, underlying set of assumptions - supported by any calculable methodology - that provides a general basis or theory. Hell, your movement has no real understanding of the...

As the globe warms, more moisture is in the air. It's a feedback. Last year we set a global record for not only temperature, but moisture as well. It's continuing into 2011. American thinkers might have thought of that connection...if they were actually thinking seriously. ... And as the...

Too true and there is no lack of folks that actively seek to perpetuate a delusional, self fulfilling prophecy.

It doesn't have to be one single base line, but there MUST be base formula, equation, etc that applies equally across all circumstances. That does not exist for the alarmist crowd... The parameters change hourly and retroactively based on what they want to fit with the result. Face facts, the...

Ya sure... That must be the smoking gun in spite of all of the other mechanisms like Nature Geoscience: Catastrophic dispersion of coal fly ash into oceans during the latest Permian extinction

Herein lies the problem with the AGW argument... The goal posts get moved whenever convenient. The bottom line is this; if you're looking to assess a cause-effect relationship, you need some form of base line to measure against.

Don't know who those guys are, but the paleoclimatic record provides huge support that the current circumstance is fueled by Mama-nature herself.

You dancing around the issue like a polka party on crack. The question is: What is the base-line that you greenies have used to come to the conclusion that there is an anomaly in the first place?

Still no answer then, eh? Probably in teh cold and snow... You know, global warming and all.