Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Not masochist, I don't know why you'd say that.

Well, you're a cut above the Guest Forum liberals who get used as mops, but not by much.

...do you not think?

I think that every time you're busted in one of your inconsistencies or contradictions--you turn into a slippery little weasel.

 

[PRB]

Well, you're a cut above the Guest Forum liberals who get used as mops, but not by much.





I think that every time you're busted in one of your inconsistencies or contradictions--you turn into a slippery little weasel.

example? I mean, I admit I don't have material, but if I am inconsistent, I try to correct myself or admit it (unless I think you're wrong, then I explain it and defend what I say)

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Admit it, PRB, you are busted, Mr. toll.

 

[PRB]

Admit it, PRB, you are busted, Mr. toll.

No, I'm not, but I can't stop you from believing absurd things without proof, which you clearly do. I can only point out where you are wrong, using evidence that I am aware of.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

example?...if I am inconsistent, I try to correct myself or admit it...

You take the cake, Holmes. I just pointed one out only a few posts ago and you ignored it. Every time I point one out--you reach in your grab bag of lame of excuses. My favorite is when you say, "I think I said..."

Sort of ironic in that other thread how you object to me using the word dipshit to describe certain people.

 

[PRB]

Sort of ironic in that other thread how you object to me using the word dipshit to describe certain people.

See? here's an example of you misunderstanding me, I have no problem with you calling people dipshit, as long as you mean it and will stick to it.

 

[KingNothing]

Boy, this thread is embarrassing.

 

[KingNothing]

No, I'm not, but I can't stop you from believing absurd things without proof, which you clearly do. I can only point out where you are wrong, using evidence that I am aware of.

A lot of the lunatic fringe around here arrived at conclusions long before they found any proof.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

See? here's an example of you misunderstanding me, I have no problem with you calling people dipshit, as long as you mean it and will stick to it.

Ah okay, you added two qualifiers now. Pretty much what I'd expect.

So anyway, did I pass your test?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Boy, this thread is embarrassing.

But you can't look away, can you?

 

[KingNothing]

But you can't look away, can you?

Eh, a lot of the conspiracy theorist lunatics around here are so annoying that I rarely frequent this site. I'm guessing I won't be back to this thread.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Eh, a lot of the conspiracy theorist lunatics around here are so annoying that I rarely frequent this site. I'm guessing I won't be back to this thread.

You know, the funny thing is that I'm not much in that camp. I think conspiracies often happen on a much smaller scale and those are ignored. PRB told me to admit global warming is not a hoax, but I never even discussed the issue. I actually think Sept 11 was the work of towelheads. And get this--I think JFK was killed only by Oswald!

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How about somebody actually disproving this assumption, rather than just "removing the assumption and assume something else"?

That's not how it works. You can't just assume whatever you want and ask us to disprove it. We should rather assume the status quo, or the null hypothesis. Whoever can refute the null hypothesis then has a case that can be argued, but not until you refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis being that nothing is happening and all is as it should be.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You know, the funny thing is that I'm not much in that camp. I think conspiracies often happen on a much smaller scale and those are ignored. PRB told me to admit global warming is not a hoax, but I never even discussed the issue. I actually think Sept 11 was the work of towelheads. And get this--I think JFK was killed only by Oswald!

If you ask me, that's actually pretty stupid. The Kennedy assassination was clearly not the work of one man.

 

[PRB]

That's not how it works. You can't just assume whatever you want and ask us to disprove it.

Fair enough, and I don't. I rely on scientific research, repeatable testing, data subject to scrutiny, I didn't make up these assumptions myself, nor do I need to defend them persistently.

We should rather assume the status quo, or the null hypothesis.

Again, sure, why not. Now, tell us what the status quo is, and what it takes to refute the null hypothesis. Go ahead, tell me if you know.

Whoever can refute the null hypothesis then has a case that can be argued, but not until you refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis being that nothing is happening and all is as it should be.

So you must be a great predictor using what you just said. Let's see if you predict the climate better than scientists have and will. How's that for a test of null hypothesis?

 

[PRB]

If you ask me, that's actually pretty stupid. The Kennedy assassination was clearly not the work of one man.

Conspiracy theorists always think they are smarter than other people.

 

[Danke]

Conspiracy theorists always think they are smarter than other people.

Not smarter, maybe more open minded. (back on ignore).

 

[KingNothing]

Not smarter, maybe more open minded. (back on ignore).

You aren't open minded if you disregard every shred of evidence that counters your claim and/or jump immediately to a conclusion that supports your worldview, as most conspiracy theorists do.

 

[PRB]

You aren't open minded if you disregard every shred of evidence that counters your claim and/or jump immediately to a conclusion that supports your worldview, as most conspiracy theorists do.

And I'll bet you'd agree with me, that WE (as non-conspiracy theorists, skeptics) are open minded to evidence that can be tested, hold all evidence to the same standard of scrutiny, and on top of that, are willing to consider that SOME conspiracy theorists may in fact be open minded, but we'd like to see it.

 

[KingNothing]

And I'll bet you'd agree with me, that WE (as non-conspiracy theorists, skeptics) are open minded to evidence that can be tested, hold all evidence to the same standard of scrutiny, and on top of that, are willing to consider that SOME conspiracy theorists may in fact be open minded, but we'd like to see it.

I will entertain absolutely every theory. And then I'll analyze the evidence and draw an objective conclusion. That's what separates me from people who believe in chemtrails and fluoridated water to create a dumb, docile, population.