wrote in message
...
On Jan 14, 6:29 pm, wrote:
obzon wrote:
HOW many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000
scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)
supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate?

Usually only when I read denialist nonsense: such a claim would be an
appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy that scientists would
not indulge in.

In other words, whether 4000 scientists agree with something or not is
a manufactured controversy used as a red herring/strawman by the idiot
denialists.

Excellent!

My feelings exactly -- how many scientists agree
on something is irrelevant.

So are you simply putting on a pretense of
being rational about AGW, or are you actually
open-minded and rational about it?

How about discussing the facts rationally?

Here are some earlier arguments, put
together on these web pages:

http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...ainst-co2.html
http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...ow-global.html
http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2009/01...for-alarm.html
http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...stand-any.html
http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/09...g-picture.html
http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/09...cientists.html
*****************************
true.blue.bluey - good luck finding any facts in that lot.

On Jan 16, 10:33*am, "DeadFrog" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 14, 6:29 pm, wrote:

obzon wrote:
HOW many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000
scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)
supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate?

Usually only when I read denialist nonsense: such a claim would be an
appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy that scientists would
not indulge in.

In other words, whether 4000 scientists agree with something or not is
a manufactured controversy used as a red herring/strawman by the idiot
denialists.

Excellent!

My feelings exactly -- how many scientists agree
on something is irrelevant.

So are you simply putting on a pretense of
being rational about AGW, or are you actually
open-minded and rational about it?

How about discussing the facts rationally?

Here are some earlier arguments, put
together on these web pages:

http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...oncerned-scien...
*****************************
true.blue.bluey - good luck finding any facts in that lot.

Not to worry, true.blue.bluey appears a true AGWer.
In other words, he is not bothered by facts and logic.
Faith is his guiding light.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 10:33 am, "DeadFrog" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 14, 6:29 pm, wrote:

obzon wrote:
HOW many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000
scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)
supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate?

Usually only when I read denialist nonsense: such a claim would be an
appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy that scientists would
not indulge in.

In other words, whether 4000 scientists agree with something or not is
a manufactured controversy used as a red herring/strawman by the idiot
denialists.

Excellent!

My feelings exactly -- how many scientists agree
on something is irrelevant.

So are you simply putting on a pretense of
being rational about AGW, or are you actually
open-minded and rational about it?

How about discussing the facts rationally?

Here are some earlier arguments, put
together on these web pages:

http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...oncerned-scien...
*****************************
true.blue.bluey - good luck finding any facts in that lot.

Not to worry, true.blue.bluey appears a true AGWer.
In other words, he is not bothered by facts and logic.
**********************************
Oh, you are priceless. Are you still denying the advances in science made in
the last 60 years?

Denialism is your faith.

On Jan 16, 11:57*am, "DeadFrog" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 10:33 am, "DeadFrog" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Jan 14, 6:29 pm, wrote:

obzon wrote:
HOW many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000
scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)
supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate?

Usually only when I read denialist nonsense: such a claim would be an
appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy that scientists would
not indulge in.

In other words, whether 4000 scientists agree with something or not is
a manufactured controversy used as a red herring/strawman by the idiot
denialists.

Excellent!

My feelings exactly -- how many scientists agree
on something is irrelevant.

So are you simply putting on a pretense of
being rational about AGW, or are you actually
open-minded and rational about it?

How about discussing the facts rationally?

Here are some earlier arguments, put
together on these web pages:

http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...-defense-again.......
*****************************
true.blue.bluey - good luck finding any facts in that lot.

Not to worry, true.blue.bluey appears a true AGWer.
In other words, he is not bothered by facts and logic.
**********************************
Oh, you are priceless. Are you still denying the advances in science made in
the last 60 years?

Denialism is your faith.

How does that work?

If I deny that CO2 can cause warming - then
that means I am denying the advances in
science made in the last 60 years, and
am denying the earth is round, and am
denying the earth moves around the sun....?

I can sort of see how Al Gore would like
science to proceed.

a) Scientist favored by Al Gore or his
successors arrives upon hypothesis X.

b) Anybody who denies hypothesis X
is therefore a flat earther, a geocentrist,
and so on.

c) Hypothesis X therefore is absolute truth.
Only flat-earthers, geocentrists and
so on deny it, so clearly, it is true.

d) Until the next Al Gore comes up
with the next "most favored theory".

wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 11:57 am, "DeadFrog" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 10:33 am, "DeadFrog" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 14, 6:29 pm, wrote:

obzon wrote:
HOW many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000
scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC)
supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate?

Usually only when I read denialist nonsense: such a claim would be an
appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy that scientists would
not indulge in.

In other words, whether 4000 scientists agree with something or not is
a manufactured controversy used as a red herring/strawman by the idiot
denialists.

Excellent!

My feelings exactly -- how many scientists agree
on something is irrelevant.

So are you simply putting on a pretense of
being rational about AGW, or are you actually
open-minded and rational about it?

How about discussing the facts rationally?

Here are some earlier arguments, put
together on these web pages:

http://bhanwara.blogspot.com/2008/11...-defense-again......
*****************************
true.blue.bluey - good luck finding any facts in that lot.

Not to worry, true.blue.bluey appears a true AGWer.
In other words, he is not bothered by facts and logic.
**********************************
Oh, you are priceless. Are you still denying the advances in science made
in
the last 60 years?

Denialism is your faith.

How does that work?

If I deny that CO2 can cause warming - then
that means I am denying the advances in
science made in the last 60 years, and
am denying the earth is round, and am
denying the earth moves around the sun....?
*************************************
I wouldn't put past you.