| *Breaking News* Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'; Originally Posted by Sir Loin
It is my opinion that anyone who claims only scientist working for ExxonMobil present any ... |
11-15-07, 05:10 PM
|
#61 (permalink)
| | Educator
Join Date: Apr 2006 Last Online: 11-21-08 05:11 PM Location: In ur threads refuting ur arguments
Posts: 1,021
Thanks: 21
Thanked 170 Times in 127 Posts
Gender:  | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Loin It is my opinion that anyone who claims only scientist working for ExxonMobil present any scientific debate about the theory of MMGW is not credible, intelligent or even very honest. | 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. Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Loin Have you some kind of magic wand that will make such a stupid opening now come across as brilliant? No of course you don’t. But feel free to keep arguing the matter as if you do. With whom ever you can drum up to have it with it. I won’t be that person. | 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 |
| |
11-15-07, 06:30 PM
|
#62 (permalink)
| | Distillate of Mjolnir
Join Date: Oct 2007 Last Online: Today 03:35 AM Location: Enscounced in baronial splendor
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 223
Thanked 288 Times in 207 Posts
Lean: Independent Gender:  | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' 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.
__________________ I hate to break this to you but there is no big lie. There is no system, the universe is indifferent.
Last edited by Sir Loin : 11-15-07 at 06:36 PM.
|
| |
11-16-07, 12:21 PM
|
#63 (permalink)
| | Educator
Join Date: Jan 2006 Last Online: 11-12-08 12:09 AM
Posts: 970
Thanks: 36
Thanked 31 Times in 26 Posts
| Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by danarhea Oh yes, nothing like getting our scientific information from a maverick weatherman, as opposed to the scientific community. Try the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute. It consists of.... drum roll please---> Scientists.
You know, those guys who actually formulate positions based on observation and data? Ever hear of them? | 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. |
| |
11-16-07, 03:59 PM
|
#64 (permalink)
| | Professor
Join Date: May 2005 Last Online: Today 06:31 AM Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,124
Thanks: 1,060
Thanked 292 Times in 176 Posts
Lean: Libertarian Gender:  Awards: | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. | 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 scientist s.
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. 
__________________ "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson |
| |
11-16-07, 04:03 PM
|
#65 (permalink)
| | Sage
Join Date: Dec 2005 Last Online: Today 05:27 AM Location: Pacific Rim
Posts: 15,811
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 1,115 Times in 843 Posts
Lean: Slightly Liberal Gender:  Awards:
Current Mood: | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. | 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. |
| |
11-18-07, 11:17 PM
|
#66 (permalink)
| | Distillate of Mjolnir
Join Date: Oct 2007 Last Online: Today 03:35 AM Location: Enscounced in baronial splendor
Posts: 1,241
Thanks: 223
Thanked 288 Times in 207 Posts
Lean: Independent Gender:  | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 scientist s.
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.  | 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. |
| |
11-18-07, 11:26 PM
|
#67 (permalink)
| | Assheimer's Award winner
Join Date: Sep 2005 Last Online: Today 08:13 AM Location: Nudist Capital of the World
Posts: 8,158
Thanks: 2,340
Thanked 754 Times in 588 Posts
Lean: Liberal Gender: 
Current Mood: | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' 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 |
| |
11-19-07, 02:21 AM
|
#68 (permalink)
| | Professor
Join Date: Nov 2004 Last Online: 09-20-08 06:52 PM
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 137
Thanked 122 Times in 96 Posts
Current Mood: | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat | 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
__________________ I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
John Adams |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to akyron For This Useful Post: | |
11-19-07, 09:03 AM
|
#69 (permalink)
| | Guru
Join Date: Jul 2006 Last Online: Today 08:08 AM
Posts: 3,205
Thanks: 209
Thanked 255 Times in 190 Posts
Current Mood: | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' Quote:
Originally Posted by Binary_Digit The only "scientists" I'm aware of who flatly deny AGW are the ones working for ExxonMobile etc. | 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. |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to Voidwar For This Useful Post: | |
11-19-07, 09:24 AM
|
#70 (permalink)
| | Moderator
Mod team member
Join Date: Oct 2007 Last Online: Yesterday 01:43 PM Location: New York
Posts: 2,217
Thanks: 699
Thanked 1,317 Times in 761 Posts
Lean: Centrist Gender:  Awards: | Re: Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' In my opinion, Mr. Coleman's blog entry is little more than a character attack on scientists with whom he vehemently disagrees. It is also inappropriate in that his claims are unsubstantiated.
In his blog, Mr. Coleman charges, "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming." As he makes such assertions, he bears the burden of offering reasonable evidence to support those severe charges. Yet, he provides not a single shred of credible evidence to support his allegation that a number of unethical scientists "manipulated" data to reach their conclusions. He offered no memos, no letters, no oral comments, no witnesses, nothing. The absence of corroborating evidence to support his allegations, leaves the impression of desperation rather than informed scientific thought. |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to donsutherland1 For This Useful Post: | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | |