Unfortunately Tzug didn't respond until pg 24, which is past the point I peace-outed from the AGW argument. You'll note that there was only 1 other attempt to argue rationally, on pg 14 IIRC. It's very telling that in 24 pages you all could only come up with 2 attempts at rational arguments.

I dislike responding to a post on another thread such that the OP can't respond to it, but since you brought it up:

I linked more than the Forbes article. Together they specifically mention and debunk the studies mentioned.

There were far more than 7 scientists who came forward stating they were erroneously added to the list. The article only mentions the names of 7. The deeper argument is that if AGW believers truly thought they were right they would set up a much more rigorous study. Instead of using biased researchers to make the call on whether someone agreed with them (which violates all sorts of rules on how to do a valid study) they should have asked scientists directly.

explanation of the ridiculous methodology + scientists quotes that are supposedly in the 97%:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ublished-them/


"Why is it that the scientists' opinions are invalidated by the presence of money, but Epstein's is not?"
Because he isn't 'voting', he is compiling data and arguments that you can believe or not as you wish. Scientists are punished for not going along with the AGW orthodoxy, as one of the articles your side linked even admitted. Believing in AGW is rewarded, not believing in it is punished. This invalidates any argument in favor of AGW as besides skewing the results it shows that those who are pushing AGW themselves don't believe in it; they think it requires enforcement.

An example of the pressure put on "deniers", about 1/2 way down the page:
"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years."
https://electroverse.net/the-list-sc...limate-change/



Grats on adding 'solipsism' to the list of tactics used to avoid a real argument.
Your side used the term 'racist' as an accusation against me, I don't think it's asking too much to have it be defined.

Thanks for posting this synopsis, I have one saved at home but I only shitpost at work (do people actually post on this forum when they could be doing something else? /shudder).


His test for left/right is interesting:
"On a somewhat related note, one of the fastest ways I can tell if someone leans right or left is by asking a simple question: “What is the bigger threat to our country today: big government or big business?” Those on the left almost always see the government as protecting against big business, and those on the right almost always see the big business as fighting governmental overreach."

Apparently I transcend the left-right paradigm as I believe big business and big gov are working hand-in-hand to screw us; there is little real difference between their interests.

non-sequiturs:
I'm sensing a pattern here...

Real American:
This has rustled several of you to a great degree. Stop pretending you don't know exactly what is meant by it, and that you don't qualify. You all are a cancerous growth, not part of a healthy body.

It's not a game, its the foundation of language and reasoned discourse. If you care at all about having a rational debate I recommend that you at least make some effort to define the word you accused me of.

I can't say I'm surprised that your scientific sources are reposting Breitbart articles with minimal commentary.

Unfortunately for you, Teppler, I'm just about as American as apple pie, and peace-outed isn't an expression.

stand down Horza, that isn't Teppler

When you talk about truth, it’s very much “solipsism.” There is no objective truth when you’re trying to qualify it by including racism. To use your argument, you know damn well what racism is, you shouldn’t need it defined.

Lastly, I STILL don’t know what you mean when you say “real American.” In fact, I doubt anyone does. That’s such a nebulous term that it very much NEEDS to be defined. I know what a real American means to me, but I definitely don’t think what I believe it is is the same as what you believe it is.

I’m living in these guys heads rent free. Hah. Yes I am everyone that you perceive is fucking with you...

fite me irl :mad:

:D

You've been very useful, appreciate ya fam

bump on what a real American means