Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Northeast Stinger" data-source="post: 217714" data-attributes="member: 1640"><p>Either you pretend to be objective to gain a rhetorical advantage or else you honestly believe you are being objective. Frankly, I don't know which is scarier. </p><p></p><p>There is so much you say that I just let pass by, but since you have claimed that you are all fair and above board on this let me just mention three things that are part of a pattern with you.</p><p></p><p>(1) Use of the word "Alarmist" when describing proponents of global warming. The definition of that term is "someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic." Look it up for yourself but I doubt you will find a standard definition that isn't in some way pejorative. More recently you claimed that your use of the term was meant to be "neutral." Whatever.</p><p></p><p>(2) Implying that some kind of conspiracy with emails, the so-called "climategate" affair, casts doubt on all scientific projections of global temperature increases. Though you have recently moderated your position on this somewhat this has been the tenor of many of your statements. Multiple organizations and agencies have found the conclusion that hacked emails prove a climate change conspiracy to be false. Your only response is always a broad assertion about science over faith in sources. </p><p></p><p>Here is just one example of the multiple reports that have been written: </p><p>The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/" target="_blank">twice</a> <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/" target="_blank">before</a>.</p><p></p><p>Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the <a href="http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General</a> and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538" target="_blank">Environmental Protection Agency</a>, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/</a></p><p></p><p>(3) Also in the past you have claimed that the federal government is spending 100s of billions of dollars on climate research and implied that this also distorts or skews the data. I have looked at the federal budget from 2014, primarily because it includes the money to be spent over a five year period on climate change, as well as GAO reports, and I have to say your number seems to be exaggerated by a power of five. Keep in mind that I was including tax incentives and anything else I could throw in to increase the numbers.</p><p></p><p>I have looked at your arguments, when you stick to facts, and found them interesting. In the past I have given you the benefit of the doubt and even compared you to a possible new Copernicus doing battle with forces of the status quo in the scientific community. But you have a tone of argument that completely undercuts my faith in your objectivity. You have a difficult time concealing your contempt for those on the other side of the debate except for one lone debate partner.</p><p></p><p>Now you want plausible deniability on any possible aspersions you have cast in the past involving use of terms like alarmists, fundamentalists, conspiracies and the like, so we can "return" to the data. You also apparently do not care for anything in these discussions to involve "trust" or "faith" or "authorities." That sounds could in theory but in the real world you have to have trust and faith in someone you are debating with, hence the term, "arguing in good faith." Frankly, I have become increasingly skeptical about your ability to argue in good faith on this topic. Perhaps it is that your passion gets the best of you but you cannot help letting ad hominem statements creep into your prose.</p><p></p><p>Finally, you seem to want me to accept that you are a more reliable authority than scores of authorities that most people put their faith in on a daily basis. You will forgive me if I find this hard to do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Northeast Stinger, post: 217714, member: 1640"] Either you pretend to be objective to gain a rhetorical advantage or else you honestly believe you are being objective. Frankly, I don't know which is scarier. There is so much you say that I just let pass by, but since you have claimed that you are all fair and above board on this let me just mention three things that are part of a pattern with you. (1) Use of the word "Alarmist" when describing proponents of global warming. The definition of that term is "someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic." Look it up for yourself but I doubt you will find a standard definition that isn't in some way pejorative. More recently you claimed that your use of the term was meant to be "neutral." Whatever. (2) Implying that some kind of conspiracy with emails, the so-called "climategate" affair, casts doubt on all scientific projections of global temperature increases. Though you have recently moderated your position on this somewhat this has been the tenor of many of your statements. Multiple organizations and agencies have found the conclusion that hacked emails prove a climate change conspiracy to be false. Your only response is always a broad assertion about science over faith in sources. Here is just one example of the multiple reports that have been written: The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written [URL='http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/']twice[/URL] [URL='http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/']before[/URL]. Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the [URL='http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf']U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General[/URL] and the [URL='http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538']Environmental Protection Agency[/URL], found no such wrongdoing or manipulation. [URL]http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/[/URL] (3) Also in the past you have claimed that the federal government is spending 100s of billions of dollars on climate research and implied that this also distorts or skews the data. I have looked at the federal budget from 2014, primarily because it includes the money to be spent over a five year period on climate change, as well as GAO reports, and I have to say your number seems to be exaggerated by a power of five. Keep in mind that I was including tax incentives and anything else I could throw in to increase the numbers. I have looked at your arguments, when you stick to facts, and found them interesting. In the past I have given you the benefit of the doubt and even compared you to a possible new Copernicus doing battle with forces of the status quo in the scientific community. But you have a tone of argument that completely undercuts my faith in your objectivity. You have a difficult time concealing your contempt for those on the other side of the debate except for one lone debate partner. Now you want plausible deniability on any possible aspersions you have cast in the past involving use of terms like alarmists, fundamentalists, conspiracies and the like, so we can "return" to the data. You also apparently do not care for anything in these discussions to involve "trust" or "faith" or "authorities." That sounds could in theory but in the real world you have to have trust and faith in someone you are debating with, hence the term, "arguing in good faith." Frankly, I have become increasingly skeptical about your ability to argue in good faith on this topic. Perhaps it is that your passion gets the best of you but you cannot help letting ad hominem statements creep into your prose. Finally, you seem to want me to accept that you are a more reliable authority than scores of authorities that most people put their faith in on a daily basis. You will forgive me if I find this hard to do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top