Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn "But they do keep making statements " The only statements being made here by me is that the people who know best are the people actually studying this stuff, and not some "journalist" from the WSJ who is not an expert in the field, and is not in a place where he can give an opinion one way or the other on the matter. This is a rather simple thing to understand, and your typical obfuscation beyond that is of no relevance. "No, I'm not." Yeah. Right. Do you think you are actually being clever with this junk? You're not. Go find another game to play.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Who know what else is bogus? " This is shy you don't listen to advocacy groups. They aren't about accuracy or even the truth. They are about advancing their viewpoints, regardless. As I've said, the people you listen to on this are the actual agencies and scientific bodies who are studying these things, not these political organizations that are trying to co-opt a very basic scientific finding for whatever ends they may have. As we can see by Doug, now, they just are trying to fill the story with nonsense, and hide the basic truth. You don't listen to these people, and the postings of their thoughts on here about these things are really of no relevance. They aren't in a position to have an opinion as to whether or not the phenomena exists.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=1441216&method=search&t=meltdown&a=&k=&aeid=&adv=&pg" target="_blank">http://www.catostore.org/index .asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=1441216&method=search&t=meltdown&a=&k=&aeid=&adv=&pg</a> >>Patrick J. Michaels is research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association’s worldwide competition for public service writing, and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year,†awarded by the Association of American Geographers.<< >>Why is news about global warming always bad? Why do scientists so often offer dire predictions about the future of the environment? In Meltdown, climatologist Patrick J. Michaels says it’s only natural. He argues that the way we do science today--when issues compete with each other for monopoly funding by the federal government--creates a culture of exaggeration and a political community that then takes credit for having saved us from certain doom. Michaels starts with a succinct discussion of climate-change science and then unrolls a litany of falsehood, exaggeration, and misstatement. He cites hundreds of errors and exaggerations in scientific papers, news reports, and television sound bites--from the “National Assessment†of global warming, a Clinton-era document that used computer models that its authors knew did not work, to the infamous New York Times story about the melting of the North Pole, published in September 2000 and halfheartedly retracted three weeks later. An eminently readable and often humorous critique, Meltdown explains why these exaggerations persist and what to do about them.<<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The only statements being made here by me is that the people who know best are the people actually studying this stuff, and not some "journalist" from the WSJ who is not an expert in the field, and is not in a place where he can give an opinion one way or the other on the matter.> Again, those aren't the only statements you are making, as anyone who reads this thread can see. <Do you think you are actually being clever with this junk?> Do you think you are being clever with your junk? You're not. Claiming that anyone who has an opinion that disagrees with yours is of no relevance is simply a game to play to avoid actually having to defend your opinion. <Go find another game to play.> Why don't you? <You don't listen to these people, and the postings of their thoughts on here about these things are really of no relevance. They aren't in a position to have an opinion as to whether or not the phenomena exists.> And neither do you, but you keep insisting that we listen to you.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Again, those aren't the only statements you are making" The various agencies around the world all say the same things, basically. Beyond that, I couldn't care less what you have to say. This is very cut and dried. There is pretty much no credible opposition. Just noise from people who aren't even arguing about the subject matter, as is their way.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The various agencies around the world all say the same things, basically.> Again, you're not an expert, so you're not qualified to reach such a conclusion. <I couldn't care less what you have to say.> And on this subject, I couldn't care less what you have to say. Particularly when you claim you can't be bothered seeing what others objections are, and responding to them. <This is very cut and dried.> Well, no it's not. But I can understand why non-experts like you could come to such a conclusion.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Again, you're not an expert, so you're not qualified to reach such a conclusion." that is another stupidity on your part. You don't have to be an expert in global warming to know that they are all saying the same thing. "I couldn't care less what you have to ay." And now you seem to go into falsehood as you delve into your usual reflective posts. If it was true, then you are spending an inordinate amount of time on what I am saying. So you're lying. "when you claim you can't be bothered seeing what others objections are" If the objections to published and peer reviewed data was at the same level, that is peer reviewed and published in approrpriate journals, it would be worth reading. Instead, we see information from "journalists" who don't know anything about the subject trying to pass themselves off as if they do. Your comments are more idiocy. The idea that you are presenting is that if you went to the doctor for a diagnosis, you would need a medical degree to understand what is said to you. That is not the case. You do need one to craft a proper diagnosis, however. And those who do so without one are not worth listening to. If you can't figure this out, then there is no real helping you. Not that I suspect that understanding any of this was your goal. You simply want to be a troll, and this topic has shown that as plainly as any has ever done.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You don't have to be an expert in global warming to know that they are all saying the same thing.> But if you're not an expert in global warming, then you can't say they are not all saying the same thing, right? What a fortunate double standard for global warming alarmists. <And now you seem to go into falsehood as you delve into your usual reflective posts. If it was true, then you are spending an inordinate amount of time on what I am saying. So you're lying.> If so, then so are you. Strange isn't it? <Instead, we see information from "journalists" who don't know anything about the subject trying to pass themselves off as if they do.> That happens on both sides of the debate, or course. And it's not just limited to "journalists" - it includes posters on Disney message boards, who pretend they know what all the "experts" are saying. <Your comments are more idiocy.> Well, of course. I was mirroring your idiotic comments. Of course one doesn't have to be a doctor to understand a medical diagnosis, just as one doesn't have to be a climate scientists to point out that not all climate scientists agree, or to point out that other non-climate scientists are not portraying what is being said correctly. <If you can't figure this out, then there is no real helping you. Not that I suspect that understanding any of this was your goal. You simply want to be a troll, and this topic has shown that as plainly as any has ever done.> No, I'm simply pointing out that your logic is flawed and your opinion unjustified. What are real climate scientists saying about this matter? Here are the words of Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of Britain's leading climate scientists. "I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the skeptics. How the wheel turns. . . . Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists, too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror, and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions? . . . To state that climate change will be 'catastrophic' hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science."
Originally Posted By jonvn "But if you're not an expert in global warming" But you keep saying the same things, and you've already had it explained to you. So you plainly can't put 2 and 2 together, and are trolling. Come back when you can figure it out.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But you keep saying the same things, and you've already had it explained to you.> I keep saying the same things, because I keep responding to you. <So you plainly can't put 2 and 2 together, and are trolling.> Well, no. I put 2 and 2 together long ago, and realized the argument you raised was just a smokescreen - an attempt to avoid honest discussion - to stifle dissent. And it won't work. Come back when you want to actually defend a position with facts and logic.
Originally Posted By jonvn sigh Laid bare, your posts are nonsense. There has been nothing but facts and logic here. You post some quote from a one off guy, meanwhile, every single organization who studies this stuff basically agree. This has been said over and over. It's also been said over and over that there are those who will have differing opinions. So your posts are pointless, and your comments are pointless. You can't figure this out, and you're wasting my time, yet again. you may tell yourself you succeeding at something, but you are simply looking like an uninformed person who has not read any of what has already gone on here. Which is utterly typical of every thread you post in. Meanwhile, your comments never amount to anything, because they are so circular and lacking in sense and reading comprehension. Basically, it's not proving any point whatsoever, as you keep saying the same junk which is utterly discountable. You found some guy to quote. So have a bunch of other people. Who cares. It's not peer reviewed and published. You don't get that. So you obviously can't digest information presented to you. Telling you any more is just feeding the troll. Why you're allowed to do that here is surprising to me.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Laid bare, your posts are nonsense. There has been nothing but facts and logic here.> Well, no. You keep repeating an opinion and anyone who disagrees isn't worth listening to, but is worth insulting. You're not persuasive, and your not informative. You keep claiming that "every single organization who studies this stuff basically agree", but you never support this claim, or even explain what it is they are agreeing to. All you do is claim that anyone who doesn't drink your kool-aid is wrong. Again, come back when you want to actually defend a position with facts and logic.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn I like how you make people who think they agree with you look like an idiot, beau.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Please see post 131 and 133 by Beaumandy. I wish you guys had the ability to ban by IP address. This guy is a drain on the dymanic of this board.
