You are a sophist, pure and simple.

Everything is pure and simple for you.

Then what was the point in bringing it up?

I had absolutely no reason to bring it up. None. Everything is either a fact or laughable.

It’s painfully obvious that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not at all. But I get that you don’t understand me.

I never thought G&T’s conclusions were accurate. You should know that I’ve always believed that GG retards cooling.

Then what was the point in bringing it up?

I’ll have to think about which aspect the NAS leans.

Are we going to bet on anything or not?

Are you happy I finally answered?

Yes, finally. I have no idea why you bothered to take it this far though. Other than, of course, trying to argue that YEC’s, flat-earthers and otherwise do not have contempt for science (they clearly do).

You don’t understand half the points I’m making.

I am done reading your nonsense. It’s painfully obvious that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

As it should be apparent from the last sentence of #218, I think you are a child, now I’m convinced it’s not worth responding to you at all.

You are a sophist, pure and simple. The only reason one would want to respond to you is so that otherwise uneducated readers won’t be fooled. If we aren’t betting on anything there isn’t anything left to say.

may not consider wikipedia a great source of information.

Wiki is generally a great first source. It’s best to follow their footnotes though if you are doing challenged research. I have noticed that wiki will sometimes paraphrase or take things out of context. For the most part though, autodidacts of the world can rejoice, wiki is a good place to learn a great deal without having to pay for it.

…are you going to conceed that G&T were wrong…

Reread my comments. I never thought G&T’s conclusions were accurate. You should know that I’ve always believed that GG retards cooling. I think that was one of my first comments on this thread. I just enjoy reading you put everything into one of two categories; i) fact, and ii) laughable.

That is rather different from saying, “this thing will be over.” Backpeddling I see.

I’m not backpeddling at all. I always meant to imply the scientific aspect of this. I never wanted to address the religion aspect. I’ll have to think about which aspect the NAS leans.

Ok, so are flat-earther’s laughable or not?

Yes, they are. Their beliefs are not credibly based on any meaningful evidence or faith. Most of their beliefs seem to be based on pure conspiracy theory and are, therefore, laughable.

Are you happy I finally answered?

Do you understand why I delayed answering?

These little jibes of yours do nothing for your point. … However, when it comes to flat-earthers and YEC, I am rather compfprtable in saying it is laughable nonsense.

How would you now what does something for my point. You don’t understand half the points I’m making. Your second sentence above makes that quite clear.

I realize you are trying to paint me as a follower…

Wow. That’s not what I was trying to do. Why did you provide me with three (out of four) useless examples of matters with no right answer? You obviously missed my point again.

I do assume the article is well edited, because as I recall you mentioned a couple of months ago on another topic that you may not consider wikipedia a great source of information. And I have already read the articel on Radiative Forcing some time ago.

See ya when I see ya….

You found multiple pieces written by people that thought it worth their time to address G&T?

I found mulitple people that considered it important to democstrate how utterly false G&T’s conclusions are; Smith used concrete math to do so. Just because someone takes the time to refute flat-earthers does not mean flat-earth “theory” deserves any credence. Smith himself pointed this out:

The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately
respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Anyhow, are you going to conceed that G&T were wrong or will you address Smtih’s math?

I think the AGW debate will lose a critical mass of thought leaders

That is rather different from saying, “this thing will be over.” Backpeddling I see. Is there any objective measure you’d like to bet on? How about we bet on whether or not the NAS reverses their opinion by the end of the year?

I stated that the forum wasn’t laughable.

Oh? Ok, so are flat-earther’s laughable or not?

You seem to have only two levels of belief – on and off.

Oh spare me. These little jibes of yours do nothing for your point. Furthermore, as demonstrated by my opinion of AGW; that is, being skeptical but still unsure due do questions about the model; I am quite capable of a range of opinions. However, when it comes to flat-earthers and YEC, I am rather compfprtable in saying it is laughable nonsense.

Tell me something you believe which goes against the grain (other than AGW).

Are you serious? Skepticism of AGW is not enough? OK…

1) I support the Iraq war and always have before, during and after having served there.
2) I think GWB was a decent man that did a generally positive job running the country.
3) I don’t believe in God (that’s a rather big “against the grain” there).
4) I am of the opinion that MJ should be legalized.

…do I really have to go on? I realize you are trying to paint me as a follower, but the reality flies in the face of your caricature.

After all – it seemed to be his post that Most Annoyed was bashing.

Yet, he was quoting me, both times.

LGM can spaek for himself.

Yes, we will let lgm speak for himself. After all – it seemed to be his post that Most Annoyed was bashing.

That’s me though, all about popular thought, like the idea the earth is more than 6000 years old.

No. Not that strawman. Tell me something you believe which goes against the grain (other than AGW).