|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 13:09:06 GMT 1
As I said, But peer review is no guarentee of veracity Then it's not scientific..... and on and on and on Yawn
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 13:13:10 GMT 1
And as I said, there is not point in pretending there is a circular argument when you cannot support what you say with credible evidence.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunterx on Sept 7, 2010 13:16:18 GMT 1
They got a bit samey and repetitive. Time for a new topic, perhaps? 'Same **i*, different topic'? You might as well leave 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' open, at least it lets contrarians claim that scepticism about AGW is a 'popular' subject, and they'll post about it on other threads whether they have any new arguments or not.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 13:16:29 GMT 1
But I use logic to support my evidence: ...I know - where's your link to a credible, peer reviewed article Yawn
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 0:31:06 GMT 1
But I use logic to support my evidence: Setting aside that you haven't actually presented any evidence to use your logic on, Science often defies logic and reason, if it didn't there would be no need for it.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 9:16:26 GMT 1
Why don't you have a go at my question on the crab thread?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 8, 2010 9:44:38 GMT 1
"Science often defies logic and reason"
Certainly your variant of Science Fiction does, Lazarus! AGW - boring? You must be barmy. Have you see Hansen's 1988 prediction?
here it is again from 1988. He is discussing the 20th century
Pure Hollywood catastrophe movie stuff.
|
|