Martin Luther, Here I Come!

The “AGW is logically impossible” list (aka Global Warming Miracles) has suddenly jumped to 52 items, doubling in size in a little less than three weeks. As commented at the Italian version of the page, I am now only 43 items away from putting a poster at the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Or perhaps I should find out where the bulletin boards are, at the University of East Anglia…

  1. 2010/11/21 at 10:18

    PKD –

    a better scientific theory that fits the observed facts better than AGW

    That’s very nice but way too much pivoting on the meaning of “better”. Are you suggesting that in principle observation alone will never be able to disprove AGW? And what about catastrophic AGW?

  2. PKD
    2010/11/20 at 07:56

    Perhaps it is me, but using one of the new generation of ‘Carry On’ bots, fully updated for the AGW debate with jokes from every Carry On film, up to and including the soon-to-be-released ‘Carry On In Denial’ (not a sequel to Cleopatra BTW).

    Anyway, if this really is a bot, then someone has beaten the Turing test and kept quiet about it given I have been online for years…

    • 2010/11/20 at 08:08

      No, really, your comment before was so generic it could have been posted about any one of my blogs, or with some small change to any blog that has ever been written by anybody. It was just a longer version of “I’m right, you’re wrong”, so am not sure what if anything I should reply?

      • PKD
        2010/11/20 at 09:01

        How about that you’re going to rewrite your 58 ‘facts’ to be actually factual, rather than emotive conjecture?
        You know, so they could be read as statements of logic, based on fact?

      • 2010/11/20 at 09:09

        That’s quite generic as well. Plus, there’s already a few links.

      • PKD
        2010/11/20 at 10:04

        Yes I did credit with you a few decent points where you have linked to external sources (not that everything you’ve linked to stacks up), sadly they are far outnumbered by the sort of emotive politicised conjecture rife in the 1st 30 points (yes it really does take you unitl fact 29 to link to an external source) and then in most of the others following.

        Many of your ‘facts’ argue a position / view of AGW that is incorrect and at worst a distorted view of AGW known to be put out by denialists. Point 41 (“Planet-wide coolng episodes in the historical past have always been local phenomena, or at worst hemispheric”) is a good case of this.
        This statement is not claimed by the main stream AGW science – yet you trot it out here, unsurprisingly with no external reference. One has to wonder why…

        Likewise with your most recent post, no-one supporting AGW has said the Earth has to keep warming every year for AGW to be true. Yet you claim a recent lack of warming somehow disproves AGW. Yet again, without reference…

      • 2010/11/20 at 17:16

        PKD – yes there’s more than a bit of humor, thanks for noticing. Anyway, there’s no need to link the whole lot, is there? It’s not like a site like Numberwatch has changed your mind, and there’s plenty of links there especially.

        In other news: a warmist site identifies the Work of Providence in AGW. Great minds, as they say …. 😎

      • 2010/11/20 at 17:19

        PKD – By the way…have you found out, what if anything could ever disprove AGW? And catastrophical AGW? Inquiring minds are still expecting…

      • PKD
        2010/11/21 at 09:59

        Thanks for linking to one of the oldest religous jokes outside of Geneises 3:16. I groaned a lot!

        have you found out, what if anything could ever disprove AGW?

        As I’ve already said, all that really needs to happen is for there to be a better scientific theory that fits the observed facts better than AGW. Sadly, despite the most optimistic attempts of the, errm, sceptic community we are a long way off that…

  3. PKD
    2010/11/20 at 02:23

    I have to congratulate you on your Plimeresque approach to the facts.

    Throw out as many confusing, irrelevant and misleading statements (mixed in with the odd decent point) in the hope of confusing and obfuscating the topic sufficiently that anyone trying to challenge them would just get lost in a hail storm of ‘facts’.

    The real fact here is that most of your points of logic are a matter of conjecture and opinion not science. The few points actually on the science are, well, debatable to say the least.

    But as Sid James might have said, Carry On Obfuscating! 🙂

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: