Posted: Sep 28, 2012 2:27 am
Oh look who's back. It's the guy who posts bullshit about climate science, gets corrected on it, and then posts the same bullshit again in the near future: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... e#p1380045
Great start John. Another post that has nothing to do with the OP. Do you pull these responses out of a hat or something?
Strawman #1, climate science assumes that the earth's climate never changes. (I'm certain that you've been corrected on this before as well)
Look John, the facts you use to try and debunk the claims of climate science (such as the fact that historically the climate has been dramatically different), come from the same scientists and journals that research AGW and conclude increasing the greenhouse gas content will cause changes to the eco system. But does that bother you? Of course not
Just close your ears and pull another dumbfuck response out of the hat.
Oh I like this tactic John, conflate what the media says with the claims of climate scientists, been reading Andrew Bolt's blog again?
If you think the only repercussion that will occur if the great barrier reef gets destroyed is a negative twist for tourism. It just shows your ignorance on this topic once more. Not to mention the poor logic you use, that just because something wont be around in the future, does that make us entitled to destroy it?
I mean, that is a perfectly good justification for the 9/11 attacks. Seriously, how much thinking goes into your posts on climate change?
Do you even know what climate science is John?
Do you know what it takes to become a climate scientist?
Do you actually believe your opinion on atmospheric physics over-rides that of scientists publishing for nature magazine?
Lastly, are you of the opinion that all of your posts on climate science on this forum are an accurate reflection of reality? If not, are there any posts you are aware of where you made an error. Can you please link us, I just want to be sure you have the ability to locate a factual error, or if your blinkers here are just too big.
The funny thing is John, you call climate science a religion. Yet you employ the exact tactics used by creationists on this forum to continue your crusade against physics. I'm not making this up.
johnbrandt wrote:Oh don't worry...there's plenty of "respected climate change supporters" who are responsible for setting policy that have qualifications other than climate science...such as economics, etc.
Great start John. Another post that has nothing to do with the OP. Do you pull these responses out of a hat or something?
There's an awful lot of grant money around if you put in the right papers...and an awful lot of career suicide if you go against the approved state religion which states the Earth is a steady state system that has always had the same climate and will never change ever again in the future...and if it does it must be mans fault...
Strawman #1, climate science assumes that the earth's climate never changes. (I'm certain that you've been corrected on this before as well)
Look John, the facts you use to try and debunk the claims of climate science (such as the fact that historically the climate has been dramatically different), come from the same scientists and journals that research AGW and conclude increasing the greenhouse gas content will cause changes to the eco system. But does that bother you? Of course not
Just close your ears and pull another dumbfuck response out of the hat.It almost does become religious...for example the scare campaign over the Great Barrier Reef. We must do everything in our power to protect it so for ever more people can appreciate it. Too bad it wasn't even there as little as 14,000 years ago, and probably won't be there again in the future. That's what's called living on an ever-changing planet instead of a stable one with no change.
Oh I like this tactic John, conflate what the media says with the claims of climate scientists, been reading Andrew Bolt's blog again?
If you think the only repercussion that will occur if the great barrier reef gets destroyed is a negative twist for tourism. It just shows your ignorance on this topic once more. Not to mention the poor logic you use, that just because something wont be around in the future, does that make us entitled to destroy it?
I mean, that is a perfectly good justification for the 9/11 attacks. Seriously, how much thinking goes into your posts on climate change?
Do you even know what climate science is John?
Do you know what it takes to become a climate scientist?
Do you actually believe your opinion on atmospheric physics over-rides that of scientists publishing for nature magazine?
Lastly, are you of the opinion that all of your posts on climate science on this forum are an accurate reflection of reality? If not, are there any posts you are aware of where you made an error. Can you please link us, I just want to be sure you have the ability to locate a factual error, or if your blinkers here are just too big.
The funny thing is John, you call climate science a religion. Yet you employ the exact tactics used by creationists on this forum to continue your crusade against physics. I'm not making this up.