Arctic ice cap has grown 60% since August of 2012

Entirely irrelevant. And a logical fallacy . . . Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

Hey you are the one who referenced him, clearly having no understanding at all. And its another logical fallacy . . . Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

Wake up. The "article" was not scientific, not relevant, and clearly a political statement. We can dissect it line-by-line if you'd like. It would bore the shit out of me, though.

Geez, Another logical fallacy . . . Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand. Still waiting for that evidence . . .

I don't know? Three?

Well, I'm smart enough not to try to bullshit Gvyer on anything about fire fighting, rescue, or pulling fish out of the water. I'm not going to try to bullshit Shane on heavy infantry weapons or poon tang. I'm smart enough not to try to bullshit tiga on cajunisms, turtle soup or middle-school vulgarities. So why are you trying to bullshit me on science, sensible guy?

Where the hell is the Deekster? He started all of this . . .

 

Yeah, I know the man. The issue is that his research was misquoted and the reader is misled.

The issue I have is that you confuse the science of global warming with the politics of it. You just can't use political arguments in a scientific debate.

I disagree with much of the AGW politics myself and Al Gore is at the top of the list. But the science of it is extremely strong and I cannot acquiesce in politicians attempting to deny scientific evidence instead of just rebutting the proposals of what we should do about it. Many of those proposals are cheap, smart, and effective (improved stack scrubbers, carbon credits). Others are prohibitively expensive, overly complex, and not cost-effective at all (ban coal fired plants). Arguing for or against these ideas is fine. But denying science is something that I have a problem with.

It is the same with religion. It is impossible to deny faith using science. It is equally impossible to deny science using faith. It's apples and oranges and way too many people confuse the two.

Of course it is cyclic and sun related! That and the fact that man-caused global warming also exists are not mutually exclusive.

Unethical superiors exist in every profession, everywhere. But one doesn't have to tolerate it. I have encountered two in my career. I left one to stew in his own mess. I took his job away from the other. Most universities take academic fraud very seriously. And taking credit for a subordinates work is fraudulent. On the other hand research assistants doing routine lab work do not generally get cited for the analysis and interpretations made by the senior researchers. But they should be acknowledged for their contributions.

That's what we do here. Want to try me on evolution?

I am ashamed at how rusty my dutch oven is these days. I'm pretty much a bacon, beans and biscuit guy. But I have a friend who makes a fucking amazing cobbler in one. His gets used a lot more . . .