Why would I bother trying to prove it's scientifically sound? No one on the 'other side' of the issue has cared about any of the scientific facts thus far.. There's no reason to make me think any effort I'd put into it wouldn't simply be shrugged off like the rest ...
03-03-2007, 12:37 PM
| #361 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina 
| Why would I bother trying to prove it's scientifically sound? No one on the 'other side' of the issue has cared about any of the scientific facts thus far.. There's no reason to make me think any effort I'd put into it wouldn't simply be shrugged off like the rest of the science on the issue. And even if the methodology is flawed, I've yet to see anyone actually post a link to peer reviewed research by someone without ties to the energy industry that disagrees with the IPCC's report.. | ||||
     |
|
03-03-2007, 12:38 PM
| #362 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by motivez Doesn't seem like too much to ask for, does it? 
| ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 12:46 PM
| #363 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| I wouldn't think so.  Most of the people who've posted in this thread are simply disagreeing for what are obviously political reasons, rather than scientific ones though. The science has been ignored or shrugged off every step of the way in favor of opinion articles by people with credibility-impairing ties to the energy industry. When they come out and say "We don't need to disprove the science, we just need to create SOME doubt! Only when there is doubt will we have succeeded." and then pay scientists go out and provide just that, they no longer have credibility in the field. Now, if they have actually done peer reviewed research, that's something I'm definitely willing to look at and wont simply discount like I will opinion articles.. but again, thus far no one has been able to provide any. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 01:01 PM
| #364 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by motivez to be fair I have undermined svenseks analysis concerning cosmic ray cloud formation n pages ago...
its not just the endless posting of crap science and opinion pieces i object to its when i engage them at the scientific level and point out why these articles are dubious all that happens is another op ed about al gores ego gets rolled out that doesn't wack it..... at what point do we assume bad faith by the a poster who doesn't engage either at a humorous level or a intellectually honest one I claim that ja jae and Balls are both arguing unreasonably and that has nothing do with climate science I thought ja jae made good questions of the mars warmer in the past post but came to a crashing halt when i came back.. there is no.."i didn't know that" or "thats interesting"..."why does venus over heat then?" or .."that doesn't matter because......" there is no honest engagement all discussions about resource stress and environmental issues bog down in these stupid politicized camps.. and its pissing me off as I have to live on this planet with all these deluded if not psychotic individuals Boris London | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 01:12 PM
| #365 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by motivez I have
 Those posts were ignored. (see India glacier researcher, glaciers getting bigger in Greenland) | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 01:20 PM
| #366 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by motivez You forgot progressives in general
| ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 01:53 PM
| #367 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz you really need to read the Ipcc report...
the glacier issue was not included in the report... ie they lent on the side of caution over glacial melting and the 2004 rapid glacial retreat data. this is what annoys me intensely... this proves you haven't even bothered to read the IPCC report as the "alarmist" greenland glacier data isn't in it.. in fact it was one of those things some scientists critiqued the report for yet here you are claiming you have posted peer reviewed data that contradicts it your so blinded by a predisposed notion of reality must be you can not notice when the links you make support or contradict your position and its not tenable your position is completely bankrupt of any credibility what so ever (:ad hom expletives removed throughout) what possesses you to think you have any grounds for passing any judgement on any portion of this subject what so ever completely amazes me you make one post after another of crashing stupidity that undermines your argument again and again I'm going for tea... this debate is beyond a joke Boris London Last edited by mididoctors; 03-03-2007 at 02:28 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:04 PM
| #368 | ||||
| Last Starfighter  Independent Northern California
| It isn't a real debate really. It's just a lot of "yes I am, no you're not" thing going on. And no matter how much data that exists or would come to exist to support global warming, the nay-sayers will just not believe because of partisan politics. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:08 PM
| #369 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Diamond Cross Most of the "nay-sayers" on here just don't agree to the alarmism. There's a difference here. If you guys are going to keep saying we have to believe every piece of bullshit (ie Gore quotes, bunked studies, radical political positions, etc) or we've succumbed to partisan politics I will refer you guys to look in the mirror.
Why would I bother trying to prove it's scientifically sound? I don't know, why would you want to investigate what you're saying before spreading deceitful and incorrect global warming information? Apparently only the non-alarmists have to do such a thing.
__________________ 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. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:12 PM
| #370 | ||||
| Last Starfighter Independent Northern California
| That's why I say you have to watch out for the politics of both sides, neither side that are vehemently involved in the issue can be objective. The alarmist are just as bad as the nay-sayers. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:12 PM
| #371 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Diamond Cross I agree. Keep in mind though there are nay-sayers on both sides.
| ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:16 PM
| #372 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Except the 'nay-sayers' on one side of the isle are backed up by the majority of scientists in related fields. The others are backed up by... energy industry lackies. Hm..  | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:20 PM
| #373 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by motivez No they're not. The alarmist ideology on global warming is not backed by the majority of scientists. It's backed by the majority of the media and political groups.
Most scientists agree global warming is real. Most scientists agree greenhouse gases contribute. Most scientists agree the effects are relatively minor, but important enough to do something. Most scientists don't base their data on outdated graphs for the visual effect. Most scientists don't parade around the hockey stick graph. Most scientists don't believe the ocean levels are going to rise 8 feet by Groundhog Day. Most scientists don't believe polar bears are drowning and would never think to use it as an emotional tool. Most scientists don't believe there is no constructive debate on global warming... etc etc There are people on both sides with equally absurd and radical points of view. Some may be paid by oil companies and some may be making themselves rich or paid by politicians with an agenda. Last edited by JaJae; 03-03-2007 at 02:26 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:28 PM
| #374 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Well maybe I misunderstood your definition of 'nay-sayers' then, because the view that humanity is contributing and accelerating global warming because of greenhouse gases is indeed backed up by the majority, and not just the majority, but the vast majority of scientists in related fields. You can't just say "No they're not" because uh, well, it's a simple fact. The number of scientists in related fields who agree with the IPCC report greatly outnumbers the energy-industry lackies who do not. Gore isn't a scientist, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to make him the face of the "majority of scientists". Well, wait, I do understand why. That's pretty much all you guys have to attack, since attacking the science behind the IPCC report and other science on the issue is pretty hard when there's a severe lack of peer reviewed research that draws the opposite conclusion  | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:30 PM
| #375 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by JaJae
I accuse you of bad faith... this was not your position your position was GW was probably nothing to do with human activity and you cited solar and planetary influences. have you changed your position? Boris London | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:34 PM
| #376 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| It'd be easier to make a new post than to edit everything to the point where my response to it seems off.   | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:40 PM
| #377 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by motivez No but he is an alarmist and he is a nay-sayer. Only one instance of my list (polar bears) came from Gore... The rest you can find all over the current political and media global warming presentations.
Originally Posted by motivez Sorry I'm at work and have to walk away and come back. I don't like stringing messages of myself one after the other. I use quick-edit and don't check to see if anyone posted. I'll try to be more aware.
| ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 02:49 PM
| #378 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by mididoctors The same thing that possesses anybody else (including you) in a discussion forum to discuss anything at all
 | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 03:05 PM
| #379 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by mididoctors No. I've pointed to studies and scientists that hold a certain view and challenged them to be disproven. Instead the responses were ad hominems against the scientists or simply reiterating what they believed to be true. You were the only one to attempt to disprove them but you continued to purposely leave out data and variables to give a biased answer and it was a cat and mouse game of pointing out the flaws in your sometimes contradictory "theories" trying to disprove usually a very minor part of what was said. As you can see I've given up responding to such posts because it's not getting anywhere.
My view is that global warming is real. Humans play a role. What that role is I don't know and don't think anyone knows, but it's probably a MUCH smaller role than people like you and alarmists would want me to believe. I also don't rule out the notion that the effects humans have could be considered negligible in time as more science develops. And given the fact that we simply don't know enough I disagree with destroying our economy through measures like the Kyoto Treaty right now. However, I strongly encourage more clean and environmentally friendly laws and practices within economic reason. I also believe we don't know enough about the process just yet and ruling out solar fluctuations, and other theories is more of a political issue than anything else. CO2 is the political scapegoat right now. Last edited by JaJae; 03-03-2007 at 03:14 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
03-03-2007, 03:26 PM
| # |
