Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The energy and climate debate
#51

Last post for me on this.

Somehow, the dedicated work of 3600+ climate scientists has become a government agenda to milk money from the oppressed. And paying any attention to the 30,000+ peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate is "drinking the koolaid."

I stand by everything I have noted but most importantly that if people have a mindset fixed on a particular viewpoint, no matter how far removed from reality, data or facts that viewpoint is, there is really no point in carrying on a rational discourse with such people.

Reply

#52
Can you please provide the source(s) for your comments on “the dedicated work of 3600+ climate scientists” and “30,000+ peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate”?

I do agree with you “that if people have a mindset fixed on a particular viewpoint, no matter how far removed from reality, data or facts that viewpoint is, there is really no point in carrying on a rational discourse with such people.” But then that has always been true regardless of the topic or which side of the issue people are on.

That is a big part of the problem with having a rational discussion on Global Warming/Climate Change. Most people only parrot what they hear and read in the news media instead of actually doing some research to find the raw data and analyzing it. Many of those same people also try to intimidate others by inferring that they are uninformed, have a fixed mindset, are removed from reality and facts, and that there is really no point in carrying on a rational discourse with such people.

There is an interesting article at http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d...s_Myth.pdf that discusses the Mythical “Consensus” being referred to here. It’s worth a read regardless of one’s POV.
Reply

#53

["Most people only parrot what they hear and read in the news media instead of actually doing some research to find the raw data and analyzing it."]

Don't you have to be a climate science to be able to do that?

Reply

#54

'Tree' pid='61536' datel Wrote:HEY WINGNUTS!! The guy that invented the internet believes in global warming so passionately that he reaps millions in 'carbon credits' while living an environmentally conscious lifestyle in his 10,000 sq ft home. PROOF ENOUGH!!

Does somebody's (perceived) virtue affect the strenght/weakness of their arguments?

Reply

#55

'admin' pid='61553' datel Wrote:

["Most people only parrot what they hear and read in the news media instead of actually doing some research to find the raw data and analyzing it."]

Don't you have to be a climate science to be able to do that?

When I first started my research into climate and historical data about 25 years ago, we had access to lots of raw unmanipulated data from a variety of sources.  As the USG agenda on Global Warming was developed and then started running into conflict with the facts/data, access changed.

So, today, I'm not sure even bonafide Climate Scientists have access to true unmanipulated data.  We and they only have access to what the USG wants us to have access to.

Reply

#56
A person's integrity matters when they ask you to believe what they say and trust the sources they quote.
Reply

#57

'admin' pid='61554' datel Wrote:

'Tree' pid='61536' datel Wrote:HEY WINGNUTS!! The guy that invented the internet believes in global warming so passionately that he reaps millions in 'carbon credits' while living an environmentally conscious lifestyle in his 10,000 sq ft home. PROOF ENOUGH!!

Does somebody's (perceived) virtue affect the strenght/weakness of their arguments?

Yes, sometimes their bias is reflected in their agenda as was and is the case with Al Gore.

Reply

#58

["There is an interesting article at http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d...s_Myth.pdf that discusses the Mythical “Consensus” being referred to here. It’s worth a read regardless of one’s POV."]

Friends of science, dunno about that:

Why would one prefer some kind of rather dubious group of people over a host of reputable institutions?

Reply

#59

I find that I feel compelled to answer these last few comments by Kommon:

"Can you please provide the source(s) for your comments on “the dedicated work of 3600+ climate scientists” and “30,000+ peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate”?"

Post #42 on this very forum is the source, which references the work of those scientists and the articles that the IPCC reports assess.. It helps if one actually reads the posts on this forum before commenting negatively on same.

"We and they only have access to what the USG wants us to have access to."

As noted, the scientists who provide the assessment of the tens of thousands of scientific reports on climate in the various IPCC reports are from many dozens of different countries. But I suppose the US government suppresses all of the information and data available in those countries as well.

"Most people only parrot what they hear and read in the news media instead of actually doing some research to find the raw data and analyzing it."

Your raw data sources so far have been journalist-written pieces in Forbes Magazine and Investors Business Daily, links to American Thinker Magazine [a ultra-conservative magazine that is known for its climate change denial via the discredited and heavily fossil fuel industry-funded climate change denial spokesperson S. Fred Singer] and  "Friends of Science" [a well-known climate change denial organization with known funding from the oil industry, and which has been disavowed and de-funded by the University of Calgary].

I have supplied links to thousands of pages of reports by 3,600+ climatologists worldwide, assessments of 30,000+ peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate, over 2 million gigs of historical climate numerical data from hundreds of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, deep sea cores, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Although there is actually much, much, much more scientific data available to thoroughly document the basis for the global scientific consensus surrounding this issue, if the above is insufficient and tainted as just more "Al Gore BS" and "drinking the koolaid," sadly, there really is nothing more that I could add.

Reply

#60
Why do the global warming believers keep citing IPCC? IPCC IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE!!!!You could provide links to a billion pages but they are not credible sources!!!! These are the hockey stick code writers and the creators of the new it's probably the hottest hiatus year statistics. This is all political and the champions are known for Solyndra, Lerner, keeping your doctor, Benghazi, US U238 goes to Russia, the men did it, Bush did it, racism did it, trillions and trillions of debt, Keystone destroys the water, fracking is bad and Christians are eating gay people.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)