Global warming propaganda: omitting debates

@Metal-Brain

This reads like a slap-stick comedy routine. Also, this is probably how things would go down if a skeptic debated someone who relies on evidence to form conclusions. Lots of confusion, zero substance.

@metal-brain said I can find plenty of peer reviewed articles to support my position on GW.

@KazetNagorra said
Which peer-reviewed articles do you think supports your claims best?

@metal-brain said Peer reviewed doesn't mean as much as you seem to think.

@KazetNagorra said
Yet you have not selected any literature to support your position.

@metal-brain said
I have already posted plenty of Singer's articles.

@KazetNagorra said
I looked up the first article from the list you gave on the previous page. The first one is not authored by Fred Singer.

@metal-brain said
YYou are a liar! I never posted a specific article by Singer, just a link to many of them. You claimed the first listed was written by someone else. That was a lie!

@KazetNagorra said
What article do you think is top of the list in this URL you posted?

@metal-brain said
What article do you think is top of the list?

@KazetNagorra said
Can you, or can you not name any peer-reviewed articles supporting your viewpoints?

@metal-brain said
Yes, the second on the list.

@metal-brain said
Yes, the second on the list. One copy and paste error does not make the list invalid.
Stop whining like a child and deal with it.

If you cannot come up with any journal articles that support your viewpoints, why did you claim otherwise?

@wildgrass said
@Metal-Brain

This reads like a slap-stick comedy routine. Also, this is probably how things would go down if a skeptic debated someone who relies on evidence to form conclusions. Lots of confusion, zero substance.

@metal-brain said I can find plenty of peer reviewed articles to support my position on GW.

@KazetNagorra said
Which ...[text shortened]... ting your viewpoints?

@metal-brain said
Yes, the second on the list.

I thought he was talking about the American Thinker link. It isn't my fault he ignored that link and found exactly what he was looking for on another.

@kazetnagorra said
If you cannot come up with any journal articles that support your viewpoints, why did you claim otherwise?

I didn't have to find them. You found them for me.

Are you going to insist I find what you already have so you can ignore the rest of the list? This isn't about me finding anything. This is about you not willing to acknowledge a whole list of peer reviewed articles by Singer.

Now, about all those lies you condone. Not a copy and paste error, but deliberate lies that deny real science. I know you tried really hard to digress away from this, but it is not working. Everyone on here knows you condone lies about GW.

@metal-brain said
I didn't have to find them. You found them for me.

Are you going to insist I find what you already have so you can ignore the rest of the list? This isn't about me finding anything. This is about you not willing to acknowledge a whole list of peer reviewed articles by Singer.

Now, about all those lies you condone. Not a copy and paste error, but deliberate lies that ...[text shortened]... to digress away from this, but it is not working. Everyone on here knows you condone lies about GW.

I didn't "find them for you."

Clearly you did not even read any of the articles on the list, considering the first one is made-up. So why the cocksure claim that you would be able to show peer-reviewed articles supporting your viewpoints? Have you ever read a journal article at all?

@kazetnagorra said
I didn't "find them for you."

Clearly you did not even read any of the articles on the list, considering the first one is made-up. So why the cocksure claim that you would be able to show peer-reviewed articles supporting your viewpoints? Have you ever read a journal article at all?

A copy and paste error is not made up. Now you are resorting to distorting the truth in a clear effort to digress away from real made up stuff.

I don't have a subscription to nature. You do. Why are you pretending you don't have a list? Are you claiming every one is a copy and paste error?

You know what I think? I think you looked up the second link and don't want to admit it. You don't want to acknowledge it so you can keep digressing away from the lies told on meet the press.

Edit: Here it is. The second on the list.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/99EO00132

@metal-brain said
A copy and paste error is not made up. Now you are resorting to distorting the truth in a clear effort to digress away from real made up stuff.

I don't have a subscription to nature. You do. Why are you pretending you don't have a list? Are you claiming every one is a copy and paste error?

You know what I think? I think you looked up the second link and don't want ...[text shortened]... it is. The second on the list.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/99EO00132

You did it! You found an article... written 20 years ago... by a climate skeptic... in a third-rate journal... But it's something!

Here's a scathing reply:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/00EO00021

@metal-brain said the lies told on meet the press.

what lies?

@wildgrass said
what lies?

Jerry Brown telling us the forest fires in California were the result of global warming.
Another is the myth that storms are worse because of GW. Some guy on there claimed that too.
A climate scientist could have corrected them and given the facts, but there were none on the program.

@metal-brain said
Jerry Brown telling us the forest fires in California were the result of global warming.
Another is the myth that storms are worse because of GW. Some guy on there claimed that too.
A climate scientist could have corrected them and given the facts, but there were none on the program.

The article you posted was disputing the precise degree to which humans contribute to climate change, not the existence of global warming.

@kazetnagorra said
You did it! You found an article... written 20 years ago... by a climate skeptic... in a third-rate journal... But it's something!

Here's a scathing reply:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/00EO00021

That is the nature of peer review, isn't it?
Funny how all those alarmists can make all sorts of false claims and you don't have any reviews contradicting them to offer.

Is that why you wanted a peer reviewed article, so you could selectively give a review response while omitting alarmist review response?

You have a selective bias. What else is new?

@wildgrass said
The article you posted was disputing the precise degree to which humans contribute to climate change, not the existence of global warming.

I have posted a lot of articles. Which one are you talking about?