Originally Posted by Scrum Nice link. Get ready for the "Just because the Oil companies paid for the science, doesn't make it false" defense. Well, it doesn't automatically, but when really, 99% of the scientists that do dispute it have taken money from oil companies, their conclusions do automatically become ...
08-07-2007, 06:16 PM
| #21 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina 
| Originally Posted by Scrum Well, it doesn't automatically, but when really, 99% of the scientists that do dispute it have taken money from oil companies, their conclusions do automatically become suspect when the rest of the scientific community disagrees with them. 
| ||||
     |
|
08-07-2007, 06:21 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by motivez But when really, 99% of the scientists that support it have taken money from activist or political organizations, their conclusions do automatically become suspect when the rest of the scientific community disagrees with them.
| ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 07:13 PM
| #23 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| I await the proof you obviously would need before making such a statement And, the majority of the scientific community has reached a consensus about the issue, there are a few lone dissenters, the majority of which have ties or have taken money from the energy industry.. It's also known that the energy industry's tactic is to make it seem like there's doubt, what better way than to pay off some scientists to reach conclusions they want? | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 07:35 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Here's to you...  Liberal
| More organizations that have made or endorsed statements on the subject say that human activity is contributing to the current climate change. That's a fact.  | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 07:45 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Here's to you... Liberal
| Why are AGW deniers so wedded to this fringe science? Why is it so darn hard to believe that 6 billion people and billions of vehicles and factories would have an effect on the environment of the planet? | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 07:55 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere Obviously it has an impact. The question is does it have the impact people like Al Gore are claiming? If you think so it only costs $15 to make your case and win $100,000. Should be free money the way the media talks of global warming.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 07:56 PM
| #27 | ||||
| Mission Accomplished NOT!  Independent MN
| I have no idea why they are wedded to this fringe 1% science. I guess it is the same reason they support a war in Iraq all for the wrong reasons. | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 08:11 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Roonie Then 99% of scientists should be jumping at the easy prospect of being $100k richer...
| ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 09:06 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Here's to you... Liberal
| Originally Posted by JaJae So, now are you trying to insinuate that because scientists are NOT jumping at this prospect as some kind of proof?
Didn't you just now agree with the characterization of this "easy prospect" as no different than a "stunt" and "garbage?"  You see, when you yourself (the threadstarter) equate this "challenge" with a "stunt", it's kinda hard to take it seriously when you want to try and make a point of wondering if no scientists taking up the "challenge" as actually proving something about the real state of climate science. Originally Posted by JaJae Your position on this issue is still unclear.
In the above quote, you appear to acknowledge that human activity DOES impact the climate, am I correct? Then in the next sentence, it seems that you restate your position as "does it have the impact people like Al Gore are claiming?" Right? You also made special mention of the word "catastrophic" in your first post. Not global warming, but catastrophic. But, when you post comments like this one: Originally Posted by JaJae ...people assume that you think that there is actually no scientific evidence that human activity is impacting the climate, and not that you think human activity impacts the climate but you disagree with the alarmists worst case scenarios.
| ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 09:13 PM
| #30 | ||||
| Bokonist  Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by JaJae It's already been argued that the proposal is a nearly impossible one. Especially when asking someone to accurately weigh the costs and benefits of a warmer climate.
| ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 09:37 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft That's not what Al Gore and the media have been telling me
 | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 10:23 PM
| #32 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by JaJae If I said, scientifically weigh the costs vs. benefits of kansas blowing up vs a forest growing in russia. How would you do that? Would you still not rather prefer Kansas blowing up?
(kansas may be a bad example, because who doesn't want kansas blown up?) | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 10:57 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft You could start by proving that you could in fact create a statistically significant change in global warming through Green expenditures.
| ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 10:59 PM
| #34 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft How and why would Kansas blow up?
 | ||||
| |
|
08-07-2007, 11:04 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by JaJae
Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Just an example, the point I'm atleast trying to make here is related to what I said on page 1. While hypothesis 1 is something provable to a reasonable mind with enough evidence, hypothesis 2 is an absurd qualitative arguement, Like trying to compare the two things I listed in my example.
The challenge has a self designed loophole, you can never prove #2. | ||||
| |
|
08-08-2007, 09:46 AM
| #36 | ||||
| Here's to you... Liberal
| Dear JaJae, I am seriously unhappy with the way you are approaching this discussion. I think it is fair to let you know, and for you to have time to respond. Originally Posted by JaJae Why should any scientist take this "challenge" seriously, when you yourself liken it to a "stunt" and "garbage?"
Why should we here on this forum even attempt to discuss the scientific viability of this "challenge" with you in any serious manner, when you yourself describe this challenge as "no different than the Al Gore political stunts and the garbage pushed through our media daily"? Are you just playing with us? Is this another attempt at a Digg ranking? I really don't appreciate you playing "devil's advocate" if you can't do a better job at it. If you're NOT playing with us, please answer my questions, or please move this thread to the Speakeasy, (where I highly suspect that it belongs.) I'll ask you one more time: How do you expect us to think that since scientists aren't jumping at this easy money that somehow actually proves something about the state of climate science as it relates to anthopogenic global warming, when even YOU believe that this challenge is just a stunt and a piece of garbage? Thanks very much, thatguyoverthere | ||||
| |
|
08-08-2007, 04:20 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere Because it's news. Al Gore and essentially the entire argument presented by the media on global warming is being completely challenged with a cash reward. The only reason global warming has turned into stunts and garbage is because of the way it has been reported recently in our media.
The simple scientific defenses have been attacked. They can't get their works published. They can't speak out without the media attacking and slandering them. They can't do anything other than make a sensationalist piece here. They have been BEGGING Al Gore and other climatologists to public debates spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get someone to debate them on the facts. Nobody dares accept that challenge. We live in an age where the fallen bridge in Minnesota is blamed on global warming. Look at the cover of Newseek:  "Murdoch's war plan, Global Warming is a Hoax.* Or so claim well-funded naysayers..." Newsweek is run by MSNBC, MSNBC is basically Soros. This is what America reads on global warming. They hear the sensationalism. A bridge falls and America is up in arms, before they blame it on Bush they blame it on global warming. Everything in our society today is blamed on global warming it seems. It is always in our media and it is always sensationalized. Anyone who challenges the sensationalism is chastised and slandered. This is the only way to make a point. It is not JunkScience who is making any claims. They're simply saying: You believe it, you say it, PROVE IT! And they're offering a cash reward as well as publication of entries on their website. For all the global warming extremists, now is their chance to put up or shutup. If someone sends in an entry JunkScience will then have the ability to respond, hence open up a debate on the FACTS. They're forcing people to get away from the sensationalism and PROVE what they claim to scientists, not clueless reporters who can't respond to what they claim and just further sensationalize the sensationalized claims. The public can then decide whose evidence and response is more worthy. Even if JunkScience doesn't pay out, they will have a scarred image if someone sends them a worthy response. But they already know that won't happen. Because there is no scientific evidence to defend the claims. Last edited by JaJae; 08-08-2007 at 05:27 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
08-08-2007, 08:52 PM
| #38 | ||||
| Here's to you... Liberal
| JaJae, I think you're playing with us. I don't like it. I think it's lowering the value of the forum. I can't go two sentences into your response without you failing to make sense in some way or another. The only way I can explain it is that you're having fun with us, and trying to stir us up. I can't help but note that you didn't deny it. You are trying to have it both ways. You want to say that this challenge is nothing more than a sensationalist garbage stunt, yet you also want to think you're making some sort of point that Al Gore and climate scientists aren't taking up this challenge. My basic question: If you don't take the challenge seriously, why should they? This was your answer: Originally Posted by JaJae Al Gore and essentially the entire argument presented by the media on global warming is being completely challenged with a STUNT that is a piece of GARBAGE.
You've got a lot of nerve. You characterize this "challenge" as a "stunt" and "garbage", and yet you still think that scientists should take this "challenge" seriously because it's "news." Ever stop to think that "Al Gore and essentially the entire argument presented by the media on global warming" is not taking up the challenge because they, like YOU, also realize that this challenge is a piece of garbage? In this thread you've claimed that there is no scientific evidence to back the claims of AGW, yet you also said that it is "obvious" that human activity affects the climate!  Please, tell me how did you come to the conclusion that AGW is "obvious" when you say there is no scientific evidence to back that claim? Originally Posted by JaJae So, you think that the proper and intelligent way to respond to the stunts and garbage from the other side is with MORE stunts and garbage?
You've earned another  for that one. Originally Posted by JaJae Yes, you are right. They cannot do anything other than make a sensationalist piece here because they have no FACTS, they have no EVIDENCE, they are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of making any sort of persuasive case to anyone other than someone who already has a picture of Al Gore taped to their dartboards. They don't have any respectable and reputable scientific, academic, or governmental organizations endorsing their viewpoint. The ONLY WAY that they can respond to the big, bad global warming crowd is through a sensationalist garbage stunt!
 I mean, think about it! Your side has all the facts, your side has the simple scientific defenses, your side has the truth,... and your side STILL cannot get their works published! Your side STILL cannot make a convincing case because of the big, bad liberal media and Evil George Soros and the mighty media juggernaut that is MSNBC!  Meanwhile, all they have going for them on the other side is... the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion.  Originally Posted by JaJae Well, maybe those that challenge the sensationalism would not be chastised if they would respond with something other than sensationalized garbage stunts. But, by your own admission, that's all they've got.
Originally Posted by JaJae And you think that their choosing not to participate in a piece of sensationalist garbage is somehow proof of anything other than being guilty of having good sense?
Originally Posted by JaJae
|
