cascadian

No one cares what you think of Binary_Digit. I don't even think he cares. You can add to the debate or make excuses and insults.
Sweet, now I can stop reading your all bolded text and know that I won't be missing anything.

__________________
"Fear is the mind killer."
~Bene Gesserit

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit That much is obvious, since you can't even support your viewpoint in this thread. I'm curious, why would you come to a debate forum and flat out refuse to debate?

I simply have no desire to engage in a protracted link argument with you over whether or not there is a debate ongoing about MMGW. I've better things to do than sit around collecting links from the millions of them available just to satisfy your desire to have an oxymoronic argument that there is no debate about MMGW. I suppose doing so would what? Assist you so you could now cease to feign as if you did not know better about this claim too? Waste someone else’s time with that idiot’s errand.

You can call it what ever you wish, victory, me being lazy, you choosing to be "subtle" or whatever floats your boat. Add it to your list of feeling “insulted” and the other bromides you tried to float in the same vein as there is no debate about MMGW. Have at it and have a blast while doing it. If you sincerely want to have the argument that there is no debate at all, go ahead. Solicit it and see if you can get others to argue the matter with you.

Good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian No one cares what you think of Binary_Digit. I don't even think he cares. You can add to the debate or make excuses and insults. Sweet, now I can stop reading your all bolded text and know that I won't be missing anything.

And I really don't care what your opinion on this matter or any that comes to mind is either. I'm sorry it upsets you that I won't agree to join in on a useless circle jerk. Maybe if you whine some more at me about it I'll change my mind. What next? Ad hom type stuff? Oh wait; didn’t I already get accused of that too? Chuckle.

FreeThinker

You think somehow the moment you wear a white lab coat you become all knowing?

Science isn't some infallible mythical god, it's just a research method. You and I and everyone else are perfectly capable of reading research documents on a topic and developing an opinon which, *gasp*, is the same thing a scientist does. The "scientist" is just someone that claims to be an expert in a given field, a field which may OR MAY NOT encompass what he's commenting about.

Anyone making statements about global warming AT ALL would need to be a marine biologist, a chemist, an archaeologist, a climatologist, and whatever the hell field encompasses solar radiation. I guarantee 99% of the people screaming about global warming are no where near qualified to do so.

Faith in a scientist is no better than faith in a priest. The title means nothing.

Binary_Digit

I agree. I'm a scientist by definition, but my opinion on climate change is no better than Joe Q. Public's opinion, because it's not my field of expertise.

So I listen to those who know better than me. And when there's a general consensus, I believe them, unless there's a good reason not to. Conspiracy theories without any evidence, and occasional random experts disagreeing based on facts that aren't true, are not good enough reasons - at least for me.

And for dana too, I wager. Considering he said scientists.

Obviously, one single scientist is just as error-prone as any other human being. And two scientists are probably more error-prone than ten groups of scientists. It would be naive to think otherwise. That's why peer-reviewed scientific reports are the only ones considered legitimate among the scientific community and knowledgeable people. That's why when someone says there is debate among the scientific community, it implies that there are peer-reviewed reports which contradict other peer-reviewed reports.

Maybe they exist for this topic, but they've been pretty elusive so far.

jfuh

Actually far from it. Without the fundamental principles of the scientific back ground required, most non-scientists or those never trained in the field would have a very difficult time understanding what is written in scientific literature. The nomenclature itself would have anyone not trained in the field running around in circles.
No one is using faith, it's plain simple fact.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Sir Loin

I have to say that since sparring with you I have found myself reflecting upon the discussion. I find that while I am still very reluctant to enter any kind of link battle, I would like to discuss the matter of MMGW with you. Links supplied where possible and truly needed of course.

To that end I will start a thread either tonight or tomorrow evening dedicated to the matter. I'm not really looking for a "debate" or fight as much as I am interested in expressing the issues about MMGW that concern me. I also listen to people who know a lot more than me and listen to all of them; not just those who agree with me. Which is why I have some serious issues with MMGW. Not Global Warming mind you, ManMadeGlobalWarming.

I am interested to see what kind of information and ideas might be exchanged as I come at matters from the more litigious side of life. You state you are a scientist in an unrelated field, coming from the opposite. So it should be interesting to see where we can find common ground and of course where we disagree. A couple of ideas already come to mind nes pa?

Initial fencing aside, I am interested in discussing the issues that cause me to doubt the veracity of MMGW. I eschew long winded list linked based arguments because I rarely quote websites or derive my arguments and thoughts based upon them. I read a lot of books and pay a lot of attention to the news. Maybe I’m even a news junkie if you ask my girlfriend. I just don’t have the time in my schedule to spend that many hours on the PC looking up links and websites that agree with things I have read and learned about. Book reviews don't feature transcripts. I steal time away to “link up” in bits and grabs. So if it takes me a while to make a reply sometimes it is because I’m just not able to surf the net when on the road as much as I am. Not because I am not going to respond to you.

So those are the caveats I proffer.

And the grammar troll can come along too.

DeeJayH

take it to the True Debate Forum or Private Debate Forum at top of forum lists

http://www.debatepolitics.com/contests/

if you would like some one on one time

akyron

Maybe its just me but that scale seems to directly contradict its own statements. I clearly see spikes where there should be a flatline according to the article.

Anyways continue with your Al Goregasms and prayers.


1998 used to be considered the hottest year in “1000 years”.

NASA Revises Temperature Data; 1998 Now Behind 1934 as Hottest


The Global Warming Myth

"What especially worries me is that if anyone dares to question the dogma of the global warming doomsters who repeatedly tell us that C not only stands for carbon but for climate catastrophe, we are immediately vilified as heretics or worse as deniers. "-David Bellamy June 2007

__________________

Voidwar

If this matters enough to mention, who do you think funds the other side ?

Do you find the same amount of impropriety in the fact that scientists supporting AGW are being funded by people who have ulterior motives and biases of their own ? Environmentalists need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

donsutherland1