- Thread starter
- #121
What you did was post an article that has been long debunked by credible voices via peer-reviewed studies in the climate science community.
You did not read the study published by Douglas/Singer. What you did do, was rely on Dr. Fred Singer, man who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years.
Singer, is a longtime paid tobacco and oil goofball who does not think second-hand smoke causes cancer among his many other 'beliefs'. For example, a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a research paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report can be found here...http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html
He is also not a working climate scientist by the way. What Singer is, is simple. He is member of a conservative think-tank who spends his time denying second-hand smoke causes cancer while accepting huge monetary gifts from big oil.
In fact his credentials are so weak, climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton dismissed Singer and his 'reports' on global warming as 'fabricated nonsense.'
The goof has also admitted accepting $10,000 from Exxon. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association It is in the public record for all to see.
Furthermore, resting your entire case on one paper is like relying on a second-quarter interception in a football game as an indicator of the final score.
I find it hilarious that you would even use Singer's work as 'proof' of anything.
On one hand you have the world's most accomplished and reputable scientists - more than 2,000 of whom have submitted research to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - carefully weighing every pronouncement for accuracy and subjecting all of their research to peer-review before announcing it publicly.
On the other hand, you have a huge and expensive public relations campaign denying that scientific consensus. A campaign largely financed with money from energy companies like ExxonMobil, which is then lightly laundered through "think tanks" like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' or through industry front groups like Dr. Singer's own Science & Environmental Policy Project.
Just another case of you exhibiting your profound ignorance of the topic and not knowing your sources or their history.
What a deusch...once again you have fulfilled your goal of posting by making shit up.
First off: Your Quote:
"I]who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years[/I]."
Your statement denied an existance of them... So if you want to follow the route that my sources are "bad". Then we'll still say that you're wrong and they do exist...no matter how much you disagree with them...they exists. You pompus windbag.
Second quote:
"Furthermore, resting your entire case on one paper is like relying on a second-quarter interception in a football game as an indicator of the final score."
Everytime you adress one of my many sources that I've posted...you refer to it as if it is the only one I have posted. Another rediculous fallacy that you would like to believe....makin shit up again. Who's the liar?
Third Quote:
"I find it hilarious that you would even use Singer's work as 'proof' of anything."
Another example of your misguided discussion "techiniques".
I never claimed to have proof of anything. You are trying to convince us that human caused GW is real and that you have PROOF of it. Which in fact, you don't havn't convinced anyone that's posted in this thread. I wonder why no one's come to your rescue???? Because you can't prove shit.
You can't simply spew turds from your mouth and expect people to believe that its ice cream and full of flavorsome goodness. You my friend are a terrible debater...but most certainly a masterbator. Come back when you can read the posts correctly without attempting to make up crap and pass it off as if other people said them.
And as far as sources go...once again, just because you and your fallacy followers don't agree, doesn't mean your right. You can't prove it's man-made anymore than I can prove that it's not...which is exactly what this is about. I have not claimed that I have proof for anything...while you on the other hand, have....and failed to produce. I hope you do a better job of this on your college papers. Big words don't get you good grades.