Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As usual, you've asserted so in the past, but not shown it.> I've linked to a Newsweek article at least twice in which a member of the IPCC explains how the reports are generated and why they do not indicate there is a consensus.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, until it is too late to do anything, meanwhile scientific consensus has pretty much firmed up.> Not about most aspects of global warming. There is much uncertainty about how much of a threat global warming is, how much is caused by human activity, how much we can do to stop it, and which are the best ways to do it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Not about most aspects of global warming." Well, no. This is the basic nonsense you hear from editorials who aren't following this stuff. The only "debate" is pretty much from fringe elements. You're stating falsehoods.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<As usual, you've asserted so in the past, but not shown it.>> <I've linked to a Newsweek article at least twice in which a member of the IPCC explains how the reports are generated and why they do not indicate there is a consensus.> And at least one of us showed how you mischaracterized what that article said.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, no. This is the basic nonsense you hear from editorials who aren't following this stuff. The only "debate" is pretty much from fringe elements. You're stating falsehoods.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And at least one of us showed how you mischaracterized what that article said.> No, I'm positive you did not.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I disagree." With no information of any kind to back up this comment, it is of no value.
Originally Posted By jonvn No. I had quoted an article. You have done no such thing. Your statements are baseless. It's that simple.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I had quoted an article.> Which article did, "This is the basic nonsense you hear from editorials who aren't following this stuff. The only "debate" is pretty much from fringe elements. You're stating falsehoods", come from? <Your statements are baseless. It's that simple.> Sorry, no.
Originally Posted By jonvn On top of that, you made an assertion. Your assertion was: That there was not a consensus about most facts regarding global warming. So, where is the support for this assertion? Nowhere, I imagine, as it is just another empty comment you make. When you can back up your assertions with some sort of believable information, then your statements will likely be worth considering. They are not now. I think everyone here, at least I am, are perfectly willing to listen to your point of view, provided it shows itself to be worth listening to. You do not do that. Instead, you play word games. So your point of view is marginalized, and you become a parody of the the right wing mindset. If you really are of those beliefs, you do them no service by refusing to point out any sort of fact or shred of data that supports what you have to say. You don't do that, so your statements here are basically of no value. This has been said to you ocuntless times now, by many people on this board. You are making zero inroads on any of your points because you simply refuse to back up what you say with any sort of relevant information. So it's quite uninteresting and irrelevant.
Originally Posted By jonvn Furthermore, the topic on this thread is global warming, not what I did or did not say in any particular post. One of your other little tricks to derail is to start turning the conversation towards what meaningless semantic game you can based on what was said here, and not on the topic. Either talk about the topic, or don't bother me.
Originally Posted By jonvn OH, and where did I quote material? 363, 364,365. Did I say I quoted a post that you specifically wanted me to? I simply said I quoted material, whereas you have not. Play your games elsewhere. Now, if you actually have some information that supports your otherwise empty drivel of an assertion, please, show it to me, so I can be disabused of these crazy ideas I have. I'll just hang out and wait for the information avalanche that I am sure will be following post haste.
Originally Posted By jonvn In any case, since Doug has gone into derail mode, I think that effectively shows that he once again was proven wrong. It happens every time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, where is the support for this assertion?> One, I said "aspects", not "facts", but if you believe there is consensus about most of the facts of global warming, then please tell me how much of a threat global warming is, how much is caused by human activity, how much we can do to stop it, and which are the best ways to do it. Please use exact numbers, since there is so much consensus about the "facts". <Furthermore, the topic on this thread is global warming, not what I did or did not say in any particular post.> And yet you just spent the last post making general attacks against what I supposedly have done in other posts. If you don't like my posts, then prove me wrong with facts and logic, instead of making personal attacks.
Originally Posted By jonvn Put up facts to support your claims, or consider them rubbish. "If you don't like my posts, then prove me wrong with facts and logic," Feel free to supply some. "you just spent the last post making general attacks" yes, we all attack you. Being a martyr is a tough lot, isn't it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think that effectively shows that he once again was proven wrong. It happens every time.> No, it doesn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Put up facts to support your claims, or consider them rubbish.> You first. Support your claim that, "scientific consensus has pretty much firmed up". <Being a martyr is a tough lot, isn't it.> I can take it. I have truth on my side.
