| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2007 01:32:15 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
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? |
Hahaha you cynical bastard, trying to make a point out of researchers having some motivation to constantly justify their research in order to keep getting money for it...wait a second... |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:40:09 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
and a Response to Spazmo99:
That isn't debate. |
And those aren't "sources", of anything but propaganda. |
Isn't everything propaganda?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:14:15 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
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? |
It's not a cop-out if there are demonstrable motives behind advancing a particular line of research, as in Fred Singer's case. It's only rational to question the motives of such individuals, and to test their science against other accepted models to see if it stacks up. I actually think it would be foolhardy to accept any scientific position at face value without first questioning the credentials of the scientist offering what should be a scientific opinion based on real research in a relevant field. You obviously agree, or you would have already accepted the findings of the IPCC. I'm not a scientist, but from what little I know as a lay person, Fred Singer, for example, does not count as a worthy source of opinion.
Your apparent position that those researchers warning of global warming are simply doing so to get grant money is cynical, to say the least. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:00:51 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Your apparent position that those researchers warning of global warming are simply doing so to get grant money is cynical, to say the least. |
Especially as there is a lot more money to be made in "proving" that global warming does not exist.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:09:09 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
and a Response to Spazmo99:
That isn't debate. |
And those aren't "sources", of anything but propaganda. |
Isn't everything propaganda? |
No |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:58:20 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
and a Response to Spazmo99:
That isn't debate. |
And those aren't "sources", of anything but propaganda. |
Isn't everything propaganda? |
No |
Okay, then please offer me your sources
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:10:55 PM · #257 |
Go study this, then you will be able to recognize some non-propaganda items for yourself.
//www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:48:20 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Your apparent position that those researchers warning of global warming are simply doing so to get grant money is cynical, to say the least. |
Note, again you assume someone's position... I won't call you a pig though.
No I do not assume they are doing it for the money, never said that, never implied that. Please carefully re-read what I typed:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
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? |
But clearly you assume anyone that is a skeptic is a skeptic only for the money. Very hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 06:54:52 PM · #259 |
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. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If being a self-serving hypocrite invalidates eligibility for Nobel prizes, there would be far fewer recipients. |
And yet I still get this talking sideways rhetoric.....back on track, please.....
Okay.....how many people here actually believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and actually more concerned with the planet and its future than his agenda?
And I don't want to hear any more of the "Well, just 'cause he's furthring his own agenda doesn't mean it's not a good idea.".
That's *NOT* the point.
I believe if it wasn't the hot topic of the day, year, decade, he wouldn't drop the subject like a hot potato.
I'll start.
I don't believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and is concerned for the planet past his own self-serving interests.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 07:01:55 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and is concerned for the planet past his own self-serving interests. |
OK I'll answer that. I don't think there's anything self-serving in Al's actions, unless you think he's so egotistical he'd lie about all this to make himself look good. I mean, get real... He's obviously concerned, and what else does he have to gain?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 07:03:55 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay.....how many people here actually believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and actually more concerned with the planet and its future than his agenda? |
Put me down for "I Don't"......and just listening to his recent statements abroad, he is un-American.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 07:49:47 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
he is un-American. |
what does that even mean ? |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:55:06 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by David Ey:
he is un-American. |
what does that even mean ? |
Something to the effect of "he is a loser and I am ashamed to live in the same country as him", and I'll have to second the notion, you can probably figure out from my previous posts where i stand on the issue.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 09:55:56 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'll start.
I don't believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and is concerned for the planet past his own self-serving interests. |
Cant say that I would agree with that statement, so sorry I guess from your perspective I would be in the other camp.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:03:46 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
No I do not assume they are doing it for the money, never said that, never implied that. |
Sorry, but I believe you did imply it. I'll unbold what you didn't originally bold, bold up the relevant text, and point out that you appeared to be submitting a statement of fact:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
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? |
You said: "Is it fair to dismiss those scientists who make a living from global warming research? Is it fair to dismiss those scientists who make money by inciting fear?" I don't see how a reasonable person could interpret that statement any other way, and so I fail to see the hypocrisy in calling you on it.
At any rate, if you now say that you actually did not mean to imply that there are scientists merely trying to make a buck, I accept that. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:04:07 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
No I do not assume they are doing it for the money, never said that, never implied that. |
Sorry, but I believe you did imply it. I'll unbold what you didn't originally bold, bold up the relevant text, and point out that you appeared to be submitting a statement of fact:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
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? |
You said: "Is it fair to dismiss those scientists who make a living from global warming research? Is it fair to dismiss those scientists who make money by inciting fear?" I don't see how a reasonable person could interpret that statement any other way, and so I fail to see the hypocrisy in calling you on it.
At any rate, if you now say that you actually did not mean to imply that there are scientists merely trying to make a buck, I accept that. |
Where did you learn to read? I asked a question! Note the question mark on the end of the sentence and the word "if" and "would" in the front???? DO you understand the difference between a question and a statement?
Are you trying to be funny, or are you that stupid?
it's worthless discussing things with you, you talk for both sides. Have fun talking to yourself.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 23:14:33.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:19:20 PM · #267 |
and good job avoiding the question.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:49:46 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and is concerned for the planet past his own self-serving interests. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OK I'll answer that. I don't think there's anything self-serving in Al's actions, unless you think he's so egotistical he'd lie about all this to make himself look good. I mean, get real... He's obviously concerned, and what else does he have to gain?
R. |
But there is because right now there is no issue in the world safer, and more prominent for making yourself look good than to state that you're going to champion the cause against global warming.
What does he have to gain?
Worldwide recognition as the champion and savior of the planet.
You don't think that's a cause he'd go for if it'd fly?
I never said the man wasn't smart, and didn't know how to work the system; in fact that's exactly my point.
I found this: The Real Al Gore on the Environment
Haven't read through much yet to see if it's for real or just the other side's propaganda, but it seems that he may have a detractor or two other than myself.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:56:43 PM · #269 |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:01:09 AM · #270 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And for the record, if Einstein were here today we'd all call him a wack job and label him not credible. |
I can't imagine why ... :-) |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:29:39 AM · #271 |
Though its probably worth at least acknowledging that it is the republican minority view of the US senate committee. On the flip side, the same US senate committee puts out this on the same web site a month later,(the report above is about 7 months old and the second link is about 6 months old) so it isn't much of an official stance on anything.
Climate change is a global problem, but the consequences can be reduced if we take on the responsibility globally. A manmade problem should have a manmade solutionâ€Â¦we have to cooperate to preserve our wonderful planet, Earth.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 00:31:12. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:32:26 AM · #272 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'll start.
I don't believe that Al Gore is a humanitarian and is concerned for the planet past his own self-serving interests. |
I disagree.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 08:23:20 AM · #273 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
No I do not assume they are doing it for the money, never said that, never implied that. |
Sorry, but I believe you did imply it. I'll unbold what you didn't originally bold, bold up the relevant text, and point out that you appeared to be submitting a statement of fact:
|
It's impossible to know what someone implied, you inferred it from what he was saying, but that does not mean thats what he was saying. I think it's unfair to assume someone is saying something.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 08:49:03 AM · #274 |
nm
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 08:56:02. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 09:31:16 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I think it's unfair to assume someone is saying something. |
You were saying??? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 06:56:15 PM EDT.
