Climate Change Discussion

[N80]

The common defense tactic seems to go like this on the board.

Step 1. Dispute the statement and ask for proof.

Um, is there anything wrong with that? How do you go about evaluating something that is counter to what you believe to be true?

Step 2. When proof is offered use the excuse "Oh I know all about the (insert any person or organization here) and they can't be trusted so I don't read their stuff.

What a presumptuous thing to say: "when proof is offered". Does your acceptance of it make it prooof? Is every data point trotted out by the global warming movement 'proof'? That's either incredibly arrogant or incredibly naive and is a major reason for the credibility gap that the GW movement is suffering from. And why on earth is questioning someone's background, idealogy or overt conflict of interest somehow inappropriate? People who are untrustworty can't be trusted. The burden of trust falls on the person desiring trust, not the other way around. Is everyone trustworty? Or just your side?

Step 3. In the rare case you can't defame the source, claim they are mistaken (but entitled to their opinion) .

And so it is your assessment that GW proponents can't be mistaken? That they are beyond reproach. That their idealogies and conflicts of interest must be ignored for the sake of a fair debate? Are they gods or are they humans? Again, the presumption that they are above scrutiny simply widens the credibility gap. And as mentioned, the buzz word of the left is tolerance and freedom of ideas......as long as you think just like them, every thing is fine.

This is getting funnier and funnier. Wahoo!!!

You got that right!

 

[N80]

Are you serious? What a laugh!!!! The current administration has been ruthless in their pursuit to punish anyone that dares disagree with the party line.

You've been asked to cite examples of this and so far, nothing. I have no doubt that both sides of this issue are exerting any sort of pressure they can to get their way. There are no innocents in this debate. And a poll (done by a group very sympathetic to the GW movement) did show that a high percentage of scientists within that movement have been pressured not to conclude that GW is manmade or to tone down their message.

However, this is not proof of the preposterous notion that the current administration is behind such pressure. The poll was international in scope.

But let's assume that the current admin was guilty. It could be. But even so, the irony is still too rich to ignore. The current admin, and all things to the right, are characterized as brutal,hateful, stupid, greedy and intolerant. So why is it news if they are behaving that way? On the other hand, the left and the GW movement are portrayed as noble, altruistic, far smarter than the masses, loving, tolerant and openminded. How is it that this bunch can stoop to such measures as the 'jack booted thugs?'. Oh, the irony...um, hypocricy I mean.

 

[turbo36]

Or just your side?

And which side am I on? I may be closer to your side then you think, the only difference is the that I don't need to feign shock and disbelief when encountering a contrary belief. You went off after a guy that suggested having a home brew for crying out loud! Relax a little, the world isn't coming to an end just because some democrats have a little power right now and want blow some smoke around.

 

[N80]

And which side am I on?

I'm not sure. Does it matter?

I may be closer to your side then you think, the only difference is the that I don't need to feign shock and disbelief when encountering a contrary belief.

No, you mock the way some of us are assessing and responding to data. Even that statement characterizes having a dissenting opinion in a pretty bad light. Is that all we have done is to feign shock? Its just kind of funny how some folks want to couch insults and stereotypes into pleasant little aphorisms. I'm glad you are so far above the snares and pitfalls the rest of us have fallen into.

You went off after a guy that suggested having a home brew for crying out loud!

Actually, I found his suggestions a bit patronizing and dissmissive and asked him if that was what he meant.

Relax a little

That seems to be a common refrain from those whose data and opinions are seriously and thoughtfully questioned. Why do you think that is? Again, I don't even know which side of the issue you are on, but what is the point of having a discussion to explore an issue if every time someone counters a point, the other invites them to 'chill out'?

the world isn't coming to an end just because some democrats have a little power right now and want blow some smoke around.

This issue is scientific, political and idealogical. I've done my best to avoid the specifically political, as the Terms of Use at TBN suggest. My responses in this thread have nothing to do with who happens to hold the political sceptre in the US at the moment.

 

[turbo36]

I'm not sure. Does it matter?

Its just kind of funny how some folks want to couch insults and stereotypes into pleasant little aphorisms. I'm glad you are so far above the snares and pitfalls the rest of us have fallen into.

.

As opposed to being direct and going for the jugular every time? Sorry but I prefer to keep a little bit of light heartiness in my discussions. It seems to me that you read too much into every comment and take them much too personally. So maybe that is why you get so many suggestions to lighten up a little.

 

[EddieWalker]

I'm sure someone will immediately dismiss this link because they don't like the person or the organization that put out the info but i Will post it any way.

Has Bush Interfered on Global Warming Reports? » Netscape.com

The common defense tactic seems to go like this on the board.

Step 1. Dispute the statement and ask for proof.

Step 2. When proof is offered use the excuse "Oh I know all about the (insert any person or organization here) and they can't be trusted so I don't read their stuff.

Step 3. In the rare case you can't defame the source, claim they are mistaken (but entitled to their opinion) .

This is getting funnier and funnier. Wahoo!!!

Turbo,

I read you link to see what it has and how Bush has interfered on Global Warming. This quote, "In all, 150 scientists reported a combined 435 instances of real or perceived "interference" related to global-warming research within the past five years." seems to sum it up best. I could find nothing about Bush or any members of his administration having anything to do with Interfereing with any scientist. The examples they did give were of scientist who were unhappy because there papers were rejected or not accepted.

To me, it sounds like sour grapes. Thomas Knutson is one of the main complainers and all he's got is that his report on the connection between huricanes and Global Warming are connected. Of course, if that was true, this past year should have been at leas as bad as the previous year when we had Katrina and Rita. He's been proven a fool with his ideas and it only makes sense that he's being ignored.

Do you or anybody believe the huricanes and Global Warming are connected? Or there is any proof of this? It's just more wild conclusions on very limited observations. The 1930's and 40's were much worse for huricanes. CNN said so!!!!

I agree with you that it's easy to dimiss the article, but not because of the organizations. The article itself does nothing to support it's claim. Did you read it?

I disagree with your statement, "The common defense tactic seems to go like this on the board." This is rarely the case. Those who have posted that disagree with Global Warming being man made have posted numerous sources to support there claims. Have you? Not believeing what one side says or believes is what the entire debate is about. Why should I believe anybody on the side I opose when they can't support there own views? Can they precict the weather one week from now? Nope. Then why should I believe they can predict it 100 years from now?

I offered two instances of what happens to those who disagree with Global Warming. I've supported my view throughout this discussion and have apologized when I couldn't prove a point I was trying to make. Can you offer any proof that actually states President Bush is supressing information on Global Warming? If not him, what about his Cabinet? Any top advisors? Anybody in the Republican Party? Sorry, but career burocrats don't have a tendancy to kiss up to whoever is in power. Citing them as sources isn't near the same as the Governor of Colorado or the Head of the Weather Channel.

I don't believe in supressing either side of the debate. I like to read both points of views for the simple reason that it interests me. I don't think Global Warming is for real, and those who say so, haven't convinced me that they believe it either. I've sited Al Gore several times and not one person has been able to tell me I'm wrong. He has done nothing in his personal life to conserve energy and in fact, abuses it worse than most.

I've also brought up the simple facts that Global Warming has happened many times before. Still nobody able to tell me who it's man made this time, but not the other times?

It's interesting that you wish to make vague statements and comments without offering a view of your own. Do you have a position, or are you just here to offer silly commments?

Eddie

 

[hazmat]

Moderator Hat on:

Easy folks - we made it over 200 posts on a highly contentious issue remaining rather civil towards each other and staying mostly away from politics. Let's not ruin this thread now.

Thanks

 

[EddieWalker]

Hazmat,

Was it me? I sometimes get carried away, but I thought I was being good.

If you said what isn't acceptable, it would be allot easier to stay out of trouble.

Thanks,
Eddie

 

[hazmat]

Hazmat,

Was it me? I sometimes get carried away, but I thought I was being good.

If you said what isn't acceptable, it would be allot easier to stay out of trouble.

Thanks,
Eddie

It's the general trend of the last few posts (not any one in particular) - more blaming one side /political party or the other, less discussing the issue at hand.

Just trying to head it off before it gets any worse.

 

[riptides]

It's the general trend of the last few posts (not any one in particular) - more blaming one side /political party or the other, less discussing the issue at hand.

Just trying to head it off before it gets any worse.

Hee hee.....

Are you not amused about who takes the flak on issues. Someone running around speaking a message of possible doom, or a current administration following past protocols.

The message is the same, the messengers switch hats. Too kewl! What does THAT say about the message. Muddled at best. I guess it is political after all.

Now about that hockey stick, just one example of ignoring other "data" elements in the reports. people tend to focus in on just that one graphic.

-Mike Z.