Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 06:04:41 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 06:02:15 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 12:40:42 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 06:38:29 AM

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait. No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming? Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

Please note my comment.

Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

Care to discuss them? It might be enlightening.

Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. I really don't care what the guy said. You guys hold up this bet as some big deal and it was just random variance. I get that, you need all the bullshit evidence you can muster. One guy chose the wrong time and the economics of the time failed him. He could have just as well won and it would have been little evidence for his case. (See that I did? Thats being truthful and logically consistent)

Lets talk about how you guys love to go on about how proponents of climate change gain so much from their beliefs. THen you hold up the lone contrarian but never go to mention how he is treated as a real important guy by Republicans of the same ideological bend. Without looking into this, I could not think of one person who is more famous over the subject than Cristy. Plucked out of obscure academia and onto the stage because he refuses to fix his data. Of course logical inconsistencies don't bother you guys. You just dismiss them one at a time outside of any sort of context.