Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[daveman]

Quite possibly, in fact I'm sure that this is occassionally the case with individual researchers whether we are talking about the fields of Economics, Theoretical Physics, Climatology or any other field of scientific study. This, however, is not a reasonably compelling reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, any more than one oddfellow's penchant for "tapping his toes" in airport bathrooms is a compelling reason to dismiss and discard centuries worth of socially conservative considerations and contributions to the modern political discourse.

The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value. And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.

 

[daveman]

Dude....Just look in this forum for other threads, it all there....links....cites...or otherwise referenced material.. Your new so I won't hammer on you. This has been hashed out before in this forum. You do YOUR own homework. I doubt that's what your looking for though.

PS....it's a shame that the only remedy is a socialism remedy, huh? curious about that.

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

Strawman

Please indicate any climate scientist or even any group of climate activists that have advocated socialism as a remedy for AGW.

To paraphrase your own admonishing, characterizing people, actions and ideas you don't like as "socialist/ism" is not sufficient to actually make such ideas representative of socialism.

Really? Didn't you just have this conversation with Big Fitz? Every "voluntary" measure you presented was not, in fact, voluntary, but forced on the public by government.

 

[Meister]

The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value. And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.

True, with that. Him thinking we'll take the bait is just too friggin' hilarious.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?

Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.

However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.

 

[Meister]

Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?

Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.

However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.

Hey, roxi...how's that swine flu pandemic coming along for you?

 

[daveman]

Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?

Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.

However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.

"Evidence" being defined, of course, as "anything that supports AGW".

 

[Old Rocks]

Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?

 

[daveman]

Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?

Yes. It's a publication that has been blessed by the AGW elite. Without their say-so, nothing gets published.

 

[RWatt]

Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?

Yes. It's a publication that has been blessed by the AGW elite. Without their say-so, nothing gets published.

So nothing has been published skeptical of AGW?

 

[Meister]

Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?

Yes. It's a publication that has been blessed by the AGW elite. Without their say-so, nothing gets published.

So nothing has been published skeptical of AGW?

Are you one of those that come in the last 5 min. of a movie and ask "what's happened so far?"

 

[daveman]

Nobody has prevented you from presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources that would support your opinion. You do understand what a peer reviewed source is, don't you?

Yes. It's a publication that has been blessed by the AGW elite. Without their say-so, nothing gets published.

So nothing has been published skeptical of AGW?

Very little.

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay, you're a fraud too, Trakar. Can see even correcting that one link, the posts you made after it and comments into it, no evidence will ever be enough for you. I'm not wasting any time on you either. Into the dumfuckery with the rest of the chicken littles. You're just another acolyte of ecofascism not worth listening to.

 

[Big Fitz]

The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value. And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.

That didn't take long to figure out did it? I thought it funny I read this only after I had posted mine.

I'm sure that if confronted with the Algorical himself recanting everything every said with the empirical evidence to back it, Trakar would be first in line with a pitchfork to compost him.

 

[The T]

No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.

That didn't take long to figure out did it? I thought it funny I read this only after I had posted mine.

I'm sure that if confronted with the Algorical himself recanting everything every said with the empirical evidence to back it, Trakar would be first in line with a pitchfork to compost him.

 

[Trakar]

If your too lazy to do the research that's on this board, just say so, it's there. I'm not going to jump through your hoops, son.

They aren't my hoops, young'un. These are the standards of any logical and reasoned discourse. The person who makes an assertion is responsible for providing the support for their assertions. As you mature and hopefully continue on in your education, you will come to see that this is the manner of most adult exchanges and interactions.

Son, don't tell me about education....I did just fine, if you need a mentor, just PM me.
Those ARE your hoops because you don't have the drive (or just being lazy) to go bone up on what has been hashed out over the last 2+ years. Just go back and read them and catch up to speed, then get back to me and we can discuss.

Children do say the darnedest things!
When you find legitimate and verifiable support for your misunderstandings be sure to bring them to the table, and I'll be happy to review and properly consider your findings, til then its probably best that you run along and let the grownups continue in their conversation.

 

[Trakar]

Have you been paying attention at all?

Obviously moreso than you have, if your posts are any indication of your actual percpetions and understandings.

 

[Trakar]

And as we saw with Climategate, these types of communications show manipulation and intent to deceive.

If climate scientists object to releasing such communications, perhaps they need to stop colluding among themselves and start practicing science the way it's supposed to be done.

Amazing that you actually persist in promoting this multipley disproven set of perceptions?!

Please cite any reputable, objective, non-partisan evaluation of the incident and the emails which supports your assertions!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bait? You as in an intelligent discussion?

Well, for sure that is not going to happen with you fellows.

However, for those observing the conversation, it is pretty obvious who is presenting evidence, and who is presenting BS.

"Evidence" being defined, of course, as "anything that supports AGW".

I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it 100% Accurate

If we get one more Peer review, we have Consensus; two more and it's "Settled Science"

 

[Trakar]

The work of an irresponsible scientist should not be accepted at face value. And AGW scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

No scientist's word is to be accepted at face value when it comes to issues of science, regardless of issues of responsible or irresponsible. Climate science is based upon supporting evidences not the reputations or behaviors of individuals. Thus far you have presented no objective, compelling evidence of any single scientist who has acted irresponsibly, yet alone that all or even most climate scientists are behaving irresponsibly.

I get the feeling there is no amount of evidence you would find compelling.

Well, its nice to see that your psychic abilities are on par with your scientific and social skills. It was the solid, verifiable and compelling scientific evidence that changed my perspective on this issue once, and if there is compelling scientific evidence indicating that I need to revise or change my position again, I have no problem with that, It would certainly be comforting to be wrong about an issue with the implications that climate change possesses.

 

[Trakar]

If solutions other than socialism were advocated, the motive wouldn't be questioned.

Strawman

Please indicate any climate scientist or even any group of climate activists that have advocated socialism as a remedy for AGW.

To paraphrase your own admonishing, characterizing people, actions and ideas you don't like as "socialist/ism" is not sufficient to actually make such ideas representative of socialism.

Really? Didn't you just have this conversation with Big Fitz? Every "voluntary" measure you presented was not, in fact, voluntary, but forced on the public by government.

No that was Fitz's assertion made, obviously without reading the supporting references I gave, not an accurate evaluation of the exchange and offerings.