View Single Post
Old 05-28-2009, 12:50 PM   #75
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Hence "stupid". Not a strawman as you try to contend.
Really? Does this apply to every subject, or just AGW? Am I stupid if I don't know much about, say, the genealogy of roses, or how to tie various sailor's knots?

'Smart' and 'stupid' have nothing to do with knowledge in a given field. You can have an IQ of 150 and still know absolutely nothing about the politics of Latvia. You can have an IQ of 95 and be the resident expert on Gordon Setter breeding. Given this, your implication that I think people are stupid just because they are ignorant of the details of AGW is quite strange. I don't know anything about tying baskets, does that make me stupid?

I think that it's your absolute credulity about the integrity of "science" that's in question.
Not at all. My credulity about the integrity of science has been backed up by your guys

You fail to show that the man's connection to ExxonMobil has remotely influenced (beyond the typical innuendo) his conclusions...
So you've departed from the "funding from organization x = fraud" position entirely?

Funny thing in Lindzen's case is that you agree that he has credibility....but then bitch about his conclusions about the climate surrounding AGW research.
Of course I "bitch" about them. They're wrong.

Yeah, guess it couldn't be that people just don't believe you haven't proven the AGW case.
Not at all. The concerns below AGW have been proven, too, and are still below AGW. If the economy goes belly-up while you hear not too much about AGW, naturally the latter is going to get reduced attention.

Oh wait, your quote above....guess their just "stupid"
Another straw man.

More innuendo and name calling.
Pointing out that your argument is a tired old Creationist argument is innuendo and name-calling now?

Must be nice to believe that you can try to marginalize people w/o having to prove anything.
Prove what? I was presented a web site listing tens of thousands of names, some of them with "PhD" at the end. Other than that note, the site doesn't even list their credentials, it just dumps me a huge block of text and proclaims in huge red numbers that there are 31,478 Signers!111. How am I supposed to know these peoples' names carry any weight whatsoever? I don't. Especially not when the page doesn't tell me their credentials. It's one big appeal to numbers - "we have more people than you do, hence we're right".

You know, it'd have been pretty easy to format the Big Block of Text into a table, with name, signing date and credentials each assigned a column.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,