| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2007 07:11:51 PM · #226 |
I posted an abstract from a peer reviews article. I find it interesting you give more clout to 'other sources' than a peer reviewed scientific paper.
I guess I'll stop posting science abstracts since people find mainstream media to be a more reliable source. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:21:06 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by pidge:
I posted an abstract from a peer reviews article. I find it interesting you give more clout to 'other sources' than a peer reviewed scientific paper.
I guess I'll stop posting science abstracts since people find mainstream media to be a more reliable source. |
Don't. You'll never err posting data based on facts. The rest is just childishness. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:26:37 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I remember you implying that, but I was saying that I am not doing the same thing, I heard from the mainstream media, and i heard from other sources, I took the other sources because theres seemed more reliable. |
Which sources are those? Please be specific, and point out the data from those sources that convinced you global warming is "blown out of proportion". |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:51:50 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
It is best to conserve because it is the right thing to do not because you believe the right or left on this issue. |
This has *NEVER* been a part of the dispute.
PLEASE give one iota of evidence to the contrary, or for goodness sake let this dead horse go.
The point is really about why this man who is a political grandstander, NOT a scientist, but knows where to hitch his wagon, got a Nobel Peace Prize.
I just don't get it. He is NOT doing anything that he's not getting something out of in return.
I don't believe for one second that he has any altruistic motives.
Nobody has ever said that we shouldn't take care of the planet, it's just that there are ways for us little folks to do things that make a difference where we live, and we don't need Gore to do it.....and many of us have been doing things for far longer than Gore's been a player. |
Jeb no offence but I am not going to enter a discussion with you for fear that it will descend into you calling me names. I was responding to ryand.
Like I posted you believe who you want to believe.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 19:52:22. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:10:59 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you serious?!?!?!
Lying, even under oath, about an extramarital affair totally pales in comparison to the president lying in order to prosecute a war that has cost tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, injured many more, displaced countless families from their homes, and disrupted the lives of many more.
It's not even close. |
No one has proven that he lied, its all liberal speculation anyways, there is absolutely 0 proof that he lied. |
You mean they hid the proof.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:03:06 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I remember you implying that, but I was saying that I am not doing the same thing, I heard from the mainstream media, and i heard from other sources, I took the other sources because theres seemed more reliable. |
Which sources are those? Please be specific, and point out the data from those sources that convinced you global warming is "blown out of proportion". |
here's one
here's another
another
note 9th paragraph
another
another
those are some of the sources.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:03:49 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you serious?!?!?!
Lying, even under oath, about an extramarital affair totally pales in comparison to the president lying in order to prosecute a war that has cost tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, injured many more, displaced countless families from their homes, and disrupted the lives of many more.
It's not even close. |
No one has proven that he lied, its all liberal speculation anyways, there is absolutely 0 proof that he lied. |
You mean they hid the proof. |
It's pretty easy to hide something that doesn't exist.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 22:05:35.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:05:01 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by pidge:
I posted an abstract from a peer reviews article. I find it interesting you give more clout to 'other sources' than a peer reviewed scientific paper.
I guess I'll stop posting science abstracts since people find mainstream media to be a more reliable source. |
I actually gave more clout to other sources, i can't stand the mainstream media.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:11:27 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you serious?!?!?!
Lying, even under oath, about an extramarital affair totally pales in comparison to the president lying in order to prosecute a war that has cost tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, injured many more, displaced countless families from their homes, and disrupted the lives of many more.
It's not even close. |
No one has proven that he lied, its all liberal speculation anyways, there is absolutely 0 proof that he lied. |
You mean they hid the proof. |
It's pretty easy to hide something that doesn't exist. |
Like the visitor logs they wouldn't hand over? Or any other documents that might shed some light on their shady dealings? How about the reports that say the Iraqis weren't buying Uranium in Africa?
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:26:16 PM · #235 |
If Bush is lying, I'll be the first to point it out and say that he is wrong, but no one has proven to me that he ever lied. I'm not excited about everything Bush has done, he hasn't done all the things that i would have wanted him to do when he was elected. And I am willing to point that out, yeah he's a republican, i can still point out that he has flaws.
Are ya'll willing to point out flaws of both parties, or are you simply going to keep bashing the republicans and completely ignore what your own party is doing?
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:44:29 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And I certainly won't be taking any tips on communication from you as I'm not one of those people who try and come up with some backhanded interpretation of what is said just to provoke a fight.
You MUST be a lawyer! |
Now there's an insult if I ever heard one. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:49:33 PM · #237 |
Newsbusters.org. A site dedicated to busting liberal media bias. Not exactly what I would call unbiased reporting. I didn't really look at the site. Do they relish in busting the media outlets that are focused on conservative issues as well? For someone who takes offence to conservative bashing, I'm not why this is listed as a source.
The world natural health organization who makes very prominent their religious and social views and specializes in naturalistic medicine? The site links me to various authorities to disprove global warming and climate change such as Rush Limbaugh, someone's blog who I cannot figure out who the author is (can't give him credit nor disprove him), the Heartland who purportedly receives large chunks of money from the likes of Exxon (I can't prove it, but Wikipedia says so), and that was just the first few. A quick scan did not reveal any peer reviewed journals.
Riehl world view. Another blog. Purportedly a conservative blog.
CNS. A site that changed their name from conservative to cybercast. Again, from wikipedia, not the best source, but I'm getting tired.
All I can draw from the sources is that you have rejected mainstream media (fine, I don't have a problem with that), but you have appeared to embrace an incredibly biased set of media sources that have a very right leaning political slant. I am not quite sure how (what I consider) biased websites can be considered a better source of information and conclusions than peer reviewed scientific articles.
There was a fight about the authority of blogs earlier. I am not dismissing blogs. But when I can find little information about the writer of the blog, or they seem to draw on biased (left or right) media, I have a hard time putting them as a source above scientific articles. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:10:02 PM · #238 |
For the first time in 40 years (and 50 applications), the EPA has denied California's request for a waiver to enact anti-pollution laws.
I guess they'll be changing the name to the Egregious Profits Agency any day now ... :-( |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:38:42 PM · #239 |
This is a long one. I know you'll read it though.
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I remember you implying that, but I was saying that I am not doing the same thing, I heard from the mainstream media, and i heard from other sources, I took the other sources because theres seemed more reliable. |
Which sources are those? Please be specific, and point out the data from those sources that convinced you global warming is "blown out of proportion". |
here's one |
This website describes its modus operandi as "exposing and combating liberal media bias," so I'm not surprised this is one of your sources. The particular article you link to discusses only one photograph, and how it was allegedly "misused" to peddle global warming. Even if that's so, it doesn't matter, because the facts behind the discussion are what's important, not the medium used to illustrate the facts. It's as though you were to tell me not to brush my teeth, because all those commercials for toothpaste show actors with capped teeth, and so brushing obviously has no effect. Non sequitur. Re-read this article in the Wall Street Journal, previously linked to by pidge, which discusses the science behind the picture.
Some blogger I've never heard of named Dan Riehl who calls himself "Carnivorous Conservative". I wouldn't put stock in this guy over a real scientist, Ryan. This article is about the same polar bear picture.
The website of a right-wing fundamentalist Christian group I've never heard of calling themselves "World Natural Health Organization". They say their mandate is to "educate the world concerning medicine, nature and natural, alternative health care modalities". I don't know why you consider them such a solid source of scientific information on global warming, unless it's simply because the page you link to says outright that there is simply no such thing as global warming. They also sell a book titled, "How Anyone Can Become A Lawyer...Without Setting Foot In A Law School!" This isn't evidence, this is kooky.
An article at something called "Cybercast News Service", which says it conducted a study which "clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets" and so it had to form this website, claiming that it puts a "higher premium on balance than spin". Hm, that sounds familiar. Anyway, the article you link to reports on a speech one Fred Singer gave to an audience at, of all places, the Heritage Foundation (what a surprise). This is the same Fred Singer who is a senior fellow at the conservative group The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and who was chief reviewer on, and co-author of an early version of, a 1994 report that called the evidence linking second-hand smoke with cancer "junk science". There are allegations Singer was paid a cool $20G for writing that report. What a lovely man.
Oh, and your ninth paragraph includes information on "a survey" that shows that 90% of scientists think that "variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time". I believe this survey has been debunked as any kind of evidence that most scientists think global warming isn't happening. Read that statement - it's not an unreasonable statement to make.
Another blog - "Scott's Blog", in fact, whoever he is. This discusses a petition that "100 scientists" sent to the UN last week to demand it promote economics, not conservation, because the earth warms and cools on its own and there just ain't any stoppin' it. Read the letter, though, because, in part, they don't actually refute the science of global warming, they just pretend there's nothing that can be done about it. They say of the IPCC (the UN body studying climate change): "While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity." They are more concerned with "development" and economics. I wonder who was paid to draft this petition and find the signatures. Incidentally, in a conservative editorial in the National Post, it reports that of the scientists, "many are leading figures in their fields, from climate science to economics to biology". Not all climatologists? An expert on the economy is telling us to do whatever we can to prop up the economy, while dismissing human-caused climate change? Doesn't sound right to me.
Scott also blogs about another 100 scientists who sent a petition or something somewhere saying that they don't "believe in" evolutionary theory (Darwinism). He does this to support his position, somehow.
Another blogger. Not too sure who he is, but according to his profile, he lives in Los Angeles, he's a Virgo, and one of his favourite movies is "Terrorstorm", which is a "documentary" claiming that 9/11 was an "inside job", a government conspiracy. That would be the Bush government, Ryan. You really want to call this guy a source? Anyway, this article deals with the polar bear thing again. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:45:23 PM · #240 |
here are a few global warming skeptics: Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Proceed with trashing and discrediting them all.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:21:33 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Proceed with trashing and discrediting them all. |
At least one of these men produced an interesting abstract. I read Akasofu's article with interest. Many others are not so credible. Zichichi's science has been criticized as flawed by his peers, Carter is not a climatologist but a marine geologist, a member of a right-wing think-tank, and "appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community", and Lindzen is paid by big oil to tell them how to debunk global warming science, and to appear before Senate committees - he also doesn't think second-hand smoke poses health risks.
Most of the credible scientists think climate change is real, but is human-affected only to a degree, such as Akasofu, and Dyson, who "acknowledges climate change is in part due to anthropogenic causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels".
Based on all the available evidence, and based on the questionable motives and underhanded characters of some of the players refuting human-caused climate change, it is not unreasonable for me to wish to modify my personal behaviour in whatever way I can to decrease my environmental footprint, to encourage others to do the same, and to try to be a thoughtful environmental steward so we don't turn the planet into a wasteland.
By the way, for your future convenience when name-dropping, you may reference this list. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 09:18:46 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I remember you implying that, but I was saying that I am not doing the same thing, I heard from the mainstream media, and i heard from other sources, I took the other sources because theres seemed more reliable. |
Which sources are those? Please be specific, and point out the data from those sources that convinced you global warming is "blown out of proportion". |
here's one
here's another
another
note 9th paragraph
another
another
those are some of the sources. |
Way to embrace the whackjobs! |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:31:21 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Proceed with trashing and discrediting them all. |
At least one of these men produced an interesting abstract. I read Akasofu's article with interest. Many others are not so credible. Zichichi's science has been criticized as flawed by his peers, Carter is not a climatologist but a marine geologist, a member of a right-wing think-tank, and "appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community", and Lindzen is paid by big oil to tell them how to debunk global warming science, and to appear before Senate committees - he also doesn't think second-hand smoke poses health risks.
Most of the credible scientists think climate change is real, but is human-affected only to a degree, such as Akasofu, and Dyson, who "acknowledges climate change is in part due to anthropogenic causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels".
Based on all the available evidence, and based on the questionable motives and underhanded characters of some of the players refuting human-caused climate change, it is not unreasonable for me to wish to modify my personal behaviour in whatever way I can to decrease my environmental footprint, to encourage others to do the same, and to try to be a thoughtful environmental steward so we don't turn the planet into a wasteland.
By the way, for your future convenience when name-dropping, you may reference this list. |
This is why there is a so called consensus. Anyone that objects is called a right winger or not credible or in bed with big oil. The majority ended the debate and came to a conclusion. The majority is not always correct.
And for the record, if Einstein were here today we'd all call him a wack job and label him not credible.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:35:32 AM · #244 |
Response to Louis:
I find it more reliable because it makes more sense. I'm not exactly the stupidest person to walk the planet, and i know enough about science to realize that the earth warms at its own rate. And I'm smart enough to know that when someone like Al Gore uses a picture and then manipulates the story behind it to be what he wants it to be, I know that i don't want to believe in what he is saying.
and a Response to Spazmo99:
That isn't debate.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:44:09 AM · #245 |
Originally posted by ryand:
and a Response to Spazmo99:
That isn't debate. |
And those aren't "sources", of anything but propaganda.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 10:44:53. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:16:44 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Jeb no offence but I am not going to enter a discussion with you for fear that it will descend into you calling me names. I was responding to ryand.
Like I posted you believe who you want to believe. |
Okay.....well, since it's okay to make gross misstatements and project poor judgement on others but not to state that you don't appreciate that in return, then fine, but I am all for having a reasonable discussion.
If you tell me that because I love my daughter I must be a pedarast, yeah, you bet I'll call you names.
I'm truly saddened that nobody even wants to see the side that caused me to blast off at Louis in the first place, even to give me the benefit of the doubt. I am stunned at the innuendo and assumptions that were applied to what I said that flew in the face of decency and plain common sense.
And as far as what I want to believe, you can offer that rhetoric if you like, but until you can show me a quote where anyone in this discussion stated that they didn''t think it was a good idea to take care of the planet, I'm sorry, but I just don't see anyone here on that side of the fence.
My whole contention during this discussion is that Gore is self-serving and not worthy of a Nobel.....all of the rest is irrelevant.
Nobody yet has given me one shred of justification to the contrary, and that whole, "Well, saving the planet is a good idea anyway." in no way validates the hypocrisy of giving that man recognition for not actually doing anything. And "raising awareness" still isn't noteworthy in my book 'til you can verify that it's actually working.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 12:31:45.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:35:56 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My whole contention during this discussion is that Gore is self-serving and not worthy of a Nobel.....all of the rest is irrelevant.
Nobody yet has given me one shred of justification to the contrary, and that whole, "Well, saving the planet is a good idea anyway." in no way validates the hypocrisy of giving that man recognition for not actually doing anything. And "raising awareness" still isn't noteworthy in my book 'til you can verify that it's actually working. |
If being a self-serving hypocrite invalidates eligibility for Nobel prizes, there would be far fewer recipients. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:57:55 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I find it more reliable because it makes more sense. I'm not exactly the stupidest person to walk the planet, and i know enough about science to realize that the earth warms at its own rate. And I'm smart enough to know that when someone like Al Gore uses a picture and then manipulates the story behind it to be what he wants it to be, I know that i don't want to believe in what he is saying. |
Nobody called you stupid. Every scientist knows the earth warms and cools naturally - that's why there were was an ice age in North America 15,000 years ago. Al Gore isn't the only person warning you about global warming. If you think Al Gore has an agenda in warning you, what about your sources? All your sources are very right-wing conservatives, many (if not all) are fundamentalist Christian. This is the reason I asked if there was a connection between your denial and your politics and religion earlier, and which you took as a slight. I was merely reporting observed fact, and was completely genuine in asking.
And if you think sources are reliable that sell homeopathic medicine and books on how to be a lawyer without going to law school, that are fringe scientists who in no uncertain terms are connected to big oil and big tobacco at the same time, or who are bloggers that also think the Bush administration staged 9/11, then I think you lose some credibility in this debate.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 12:58:56. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:02:06 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Anyone that objects is called a right winger or not credible or in bed with big oil. |
I think the facts about the characters in this issue speak for themselves. You don't have to actually call an oil industry zealot a an oil industry zealot when he is demonstrably an oil industry zealot. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:22:56 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Anyone that objects is called a right winger or not credible or in bed with big oil. |
I think the facts about the characters in this issue speak for themselves. You don't have to actually call an oil industry zealot a an oil industry zealot when he is demonstrably an oil industry zealot. |
dismissing an arguement because of where it comes from is a cop out. fight with facts or not at all. Would it be fair if we dismissed all the experts and scientists that make a living off global warming research or make money off global warming fears?
|
|
