Martin Luther, Here I Come!

0 Replies to “Martin Luther, Here I Come!”

  1. PKD –

    a better scientific theory that fits the observed facts better than AGW

    That’s very nice but way too much pivoting on the meaning of “better”. Are you suggesting that in principle observation alone will never be able to disprove AGW? And what about catastrophic AGW?

  2. Perhaps it is me, but using one of the new generation of ‘Carry On’ bots, fully updated for the AGW debate with jokes from every Carry On film, up to and including the soon-to-be-released ‘Carry On In Denial’ (not a sequel to Cleopatra BTW).

    Anyway, if this really is a bot, then someone has beaten the Turing test and kept quiet about it given I have been online for years…

    1. No, really, your comment before was so generic it could have been posted about any one of my blogs, or with some small change to any blog that has ever been written by anybody. It was just a longer version of “I’m right, you’re wrong”, so am not sure what if anything I should reply?

      1. How about that you’re going to rewrite your 58 ‘facts’ to be actually factual, rather than emotive conjecture?
        You know, so they could be read as statements of logic, based on fact?

      2. Yes I did credit with you a few decent points where you have linked to external sources (not that everything you’ve linked to stacks up), sadly they are far outnumbered by the sort of emotive politicised conjecture rife in the 1st 30 points (yes it really does take you unitl fact 29 to link to an external source) and then in most of the others following.

        Many of your ‘facts’ argue a position / view of AGW that is incorrect and at worst a distorted view of AGW known to be put out by denialists. Point 41 (“Planet-wide coolng episodes in the historical past have always been local phenomena, or at worst hemispheric”) is a good case of this.
        This statement is not claimed by the main stream AGW science – yet you trot it out here, unsurprisingly with no external reference. One has to wonder why…

        Likewise with your most recent post, no-one supporting AGW has said the Earth has to keep warming every year for AGW to be true. Yet you claim a recent lack of warming somehow disproves AGW. Yet again, without reference…

      3. PKD – By the way…have you found out, what if anything could ever disprove AGW? And catastrophical AGW? Inquiring minds are still expecting…

      4. Thanks for linking to one of the oldest religous jokes outside of Geneises 3:16. I groaned a lot!

        have you found out, what if anything could ever disprove AGW?

        As I’ve already said, all that really needs to happen is for there to be a better scientific theory that fits the observed facts better than AGW. Sadly, despite the most optimistic attempts of the, errm, sceptic community we are a long way off that…

  3. I have to congratulate you on your Plimeresque approach to the facts.

    Throw out as many confusing, irrelevant and misleading statements (mixed in with the odd decent point) in the hope of confusing and obfuscating the topic sufficiently that anyone trying to challenge them would just get lost in a hail storm of ‘facts’.

    The real fact here is that most of your points of logic are a matter of conjecture and opinion not science. The few points actually on the science are, well, debatable to say the least.

    But as Sid James might have said, Carry On Obfuscating! πŸ™‚

Leave a Reply to omnologos Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.