Another closed thread because of politics @Egon

[Egon]

Gullibility...it's a prerequisite for the naive and those that can't think for themselves...

Again; how do you determine what is what and who can and who can't?? Neutrality is difficult to define!

 

[/pine]

I don't think that's fair. From what I've read on here so far, there is a lot of thought applied in believing in global warming. Everyone seems very intelligent. Most are a lot smarter then I am.

In my opinion, I think it's more about loyalty to their position and relying on that loyalty to ignore what they don't want to hear. In many ways it's like supporting a sports team. If you are a fan of that team, and you grew up being a fan of that team, it is almost impossible to acknowledge that nobody on that teams cares if you live or die. Your support is based on loyalty, and regardless of what they do, it doesn't matter, the other teams are the bad guys.

I agree it's unfair to stereotype everyone that supports the AGW theory as naive and gullible but in the same respect blind loyalty should have it's limits when it comes to a science...and I think some of the replies are from folks that have done some research and base their beliefs on what they have learned...others not so much

As for the sports analogy and team loyalty...let me digress...I was born and raised in what was a small fishing/tourist community on the West coast of FL...citrus was the biggest industry...due largely to the influx of "snowbirds" moving south...the area now is like the 12th largest TV market in the country and has both NFL and MLB franchises...but the fan bases are an embarrassment because the area residents are still so loyal to their former home town teams they do not support the local teams...it sucks to go to a game and see a neighbor wearing an opposing teams jersey and not supporting the home team...

 

[Pixguy]

I agree it's unfair to stereotype everyone that supports the AGW theory as naive and gullible but in the same respect blind loyalty should have it's limits when it comes to a science...and I think some of the replies are from folks that have done some research and base their beliefs on what they have learned...others not so much

As for the sports analogy and team loyalty...let me digress...I was born and raised in what was a small fishing/tourist community on the West coast of FL...citrus was the biggest industry...due largely to the influx of "snowbirds" moving south...the area now is like the 12th largest TV market in the country and has both NFL and MLB franchises...but the fan bases are an embarrassment because the area residents are still so loyal to their former home town teams they do not support the local teams...it sucks to go to a game and see a neighbor wearing an opposing teams jersey and not supporting the home team...

Go Rays....... Unless they're playing the Bosox.

Just proving your point. :thumbsup:

 

[turnkey4099]

Sounds like another diversion from the road to credibility.

For sure. That quote alone is reason enough to ignore anything he says.

 

[turnkey4099]

The only ones that have credibility issues are the ones (scientists/researchers) that got caught altering and falsifying temperature data to make the facts fit their theory...

Just to point out for the upteeenth time. Multiple investigations of that claim all showed that the work was valid and required. There was nothing sleazy or underhanded found.

That keeps surfacing like the Benghazi crap. How many times was that found to be nothing but people still believe it.

 

[Thall303]

That all depends upon ones objectivity!

 

[turnkey4099]

Perhaps you have forgotten. I haven' t seen any cite backing up your claim that 90% of glaciers are growing. The only cite you gave was the Hubbard one that failed. Just a mild reminder.

 

[/pine]

You obviously wouldn't know the meaning of the word credibility if the definition was tattooed across your forehead...!

 

[Hanshans]

Just to point out for the upteeenth time. Multiple investigations of that claim all showed that the work was valid and required. There was nothing sleazy or underhanded found.

That keeps surfacing like the Benghazi crap. How many times was that found to be nothing but people still believe it.

Right! If you keep repeating stuff enough times, people eventually start believing it.......:laughing:

 

[/pine]

Perhaps you have forgotten. I haven' t seen any cite backing up your claim that 90% of glaciers are growing. The only cite you gave was the Hubbard one that failed. Just a mild reminder.

try to keep up...There was full transparency with the citation...there was no hiding the dated material...try not to be so trivial and petty...geeze...!