Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm Strange with in those links I see reports from the BBC, NASA, and other sources then FOX News and other "Right Wing Sources". |
You mean like this link from the Washington Post that mentions what scientific report?
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/m...ed-as-religion
or this one which links nicely to that bastion of scientific reporting the TV and Show Biz section of the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...se-preach.html
How about these from the OPINION section of the Australian News.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...4-7583,00.html
I have checked the last 140 of those links (I enjoy research in fact I get paid for it so I have a high tolerance to boredom) and of those 140 links I found about three genuinely interesting articles, 5 broken links and and ton of blogs and tabloid crap but the one thing I did not find in any of those links was a single scientific paper with data and fact to back it up, sure there are lots of "Joe Schmoe presented a paper on" statements but no actual fact.
If you think that copying and pasting links with the word climate it is a valid form of science then I see why we disagree because its a pretty poor attempt at proving a point to anyone but the easily fooled.
In fact the only thing I have found accurate in your posts to date is the title of the thread because what you are doing is literally "Junk Science".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by senojekips It's the oldest ploy in the book to try and get one's opponent on the back foot defending his argument instead of promoting your own. |
Actually it is the second oldest ploy in the book behind dumping tons of unrelated data on the opposition in the hopes that no one can or will check the relevance of the data to the argument, something that 5.56 is very adept at.