Global Climate Change Science News

[Animavore]

I see.
I write something, and you say I IMPLIED something.

Better watch what I write then.

Yes. You do really need to stop contradicting yourself. One minute saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas is equivalent to saying someone created the universe. Next minute you say no one denies this fact.

[mistermack]

That's because nobody denied it.

If that's too complicated for you.....

[Animavore]

That's because nobody denied it.

If that's too complicated for you.....

You said:

It's actually very similar. CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence.

These are your own words. You explicitly said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas carries the same weight of evidence as someone created the universe.

Is that too complicated for you.

Hope you took the time to watch those videos I graciously posted for you.

[mistermack]

No I didn't say that.
Why do you need to change my post to make your point?
You quote my words, and then change them to try to justify your point.

[Animavore]

No I didn't say that.
Why do you need to change my post to make your point?
You quote my words, and then change them to try to justify your point.

No I didn't change them. It's exactly what you said.

It's actually very similar. CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence.

I have not altered these words at all. Others can look back to the post and verify it.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... &p=1647471

[mistermack]

Like I said, you quoted my actual words, and then changed them, paraphrased them, and said I IMPLIED something.
I don't imply things. I write what I think.

[pErvinalia]

I see.
I write something, and you say I IMPLIED something.

Better watch what I write then.

You should, because that is exactly what you implied. If you weren't implying that then what did your post mean?

[Animavore]

Like I said, you quoted my actual words, and then changed them, paraphrased them, and said I IMPLIED something.
I don't imply things. I write what I think.

I didn't change them. I haven't touched your words. I quoted them as they were. There is no editing at all. As I said, I've linked it there for everyone to see. If anyone thinks I'm lying they can point it out.

[mistermack]

I didn't change them. I haven't touched your words. I quoted them as they were. There is no editing at all. As I said, I've linked it there for everyone to see. If anyone thinks I'm lying they can point it out.

I didn't say you edited my words when you quoted them. You then went on to change them and reply to your own version. Are you blind?

Anyway, If I wanted to say that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, is would say "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas". I wouldn't imply it or hint at it. That might be how you go about things.
I'm happy to live in a much more straightforward world.

In case you have any lingering doubts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
If I took you seriously, I could go back and find loads of instances when I've said the same thing.

[Animavore]

If I took you seriously, I could go back and find loads of instances when I've said the same thing.

I know there are. I already acknowledged that you contradicted yourself in the post where I first quoted you.

Anyway, what happened to -

The first two are true and not disputed by anybody that I know of.

(the first being that CO2 is a greenhouse gas)

Did you change your mind?

Oh you do agree that it is true. So how is saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas like saying someone started the universe? How is it the same standard of evidence?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1647478

[pErvinalia]

I didn't change them. I haven't touched your words. I quoted them as they were. There is no editing at all. As I said, I've linked it there for everyone to see. If anyone thinks I'm lying they can point it out.

I didn't say you edited my words when you quoted them. You then went on to change them and reply to your own version. Are you blind?

Anyway, If I wanted to say that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, is would say "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas". I wouldn't imply it or hint at it. That might be how you go about things.
I'm happy to live in a much more straightforward world.

In case you have any lingering doubts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
If I took you seriously, I could go back and find loads of instances when I've said the same thing.

So why did you equate it to religion?

[Animavore]

I love it when deniers go rogue.

[Animavore]

Just posted today. Timely.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/inocula ... laims.html

[mistermack]

It's actually very similar. CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence.

These are your own words. You explicitly said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas carries the same weight of evidence as someone created the universe.

I've put in colour for you, like you do with children, to point out what you ignored, and where you made your changes. So that I end up IMPLYING something that's come out of your own head.
Hope the pretty colours help.

To make it clearer for you, proclaiming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is a shit standard of evidence for the warming we observe being down to CO2. CO2 could be responsible for all of that one degree, none of it, or 0.04 % of it, to grab a convenient number.
It's meaningless, unless you can establish cause and effect.
And that's why it's like pointing to the universe as evidence for god.

[Animavore]

Colouring it in didn't do anything to help your case. You said "CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence."

That is precisely what you said. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. You equated the two (that's what the equals sign means) and then said they have the same standard of evidence to one another.

You messed up royally.