Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8313435)

The word skeptic means nothing unless you say what the skeptic is skeptical of. It is used by the IPCC as a pejorative term for non-believer, or heretic, in an attempt to divert attention away from the real problem, that science without skeptics is not science, it's religion. This is spin and I am not interested in spin.

If you want to contribute to a scientific debate then say what you mean.

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8313442)

Says the man that asked what AGW meant.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8313460)

I asked what AGW was, not what it meant. You didn't understand the question.

Originally Posted by Centurion (Post 8313473)

Oh gosh, someone remind me what you two are debating. I've only gone back a couple of pages but am still no better off :p

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8313465)

I understood your question. If you want to contribute to a scientific debate then say what you mean.

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8313479)

Because it's Friday on BE!:)

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8313469)

If you understood it, why haven't you answered it?

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8313472)

Because you're not my Dad and you can't make me.

Originally Posted by Centurion (Post 8313473)

Oh gosh, someone remind me what you two are debating. I've only gone back a couple of pages but am still no better off :p

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8313512)

It does rather well illustrate the standard method of IPCC though. Steer the conversation in every direction except that of the actual science.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8313482)

Thank the lord harry for that.

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8313529)

Good job the denial case is based on sound science and logic.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8313534)

Denial of natural global warming, or denial of man made global warming?

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8313538)

Bang that drum.