Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (chemical, Australia, London)

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

I'm not sure about something. How does someone with your background evaluate science?

Like any other scientific research that I read on a constant basis and have to evaluate... State your arguments, state your facts, state your reasoning, and state the counterpoints... recheck their facts as they tend to leave a few of them out... then read an opposing viewpoint and critique it and then read other viewpoints until you find the person who bests answers the question... Then using Occam's razer, the simplest explanation is often the right explanation and evaluate their "science" with it... Then explore why the other side has been deceitful in its explanations or intentional lack thereof... I find it strange that when one side is open to debate, the other side is unwilling... I would like a televised debate of the issue with experts from both sides presenting evidence and exposing myths... I have noticed that the theory behind "why" CO2 causes global warming has changed probably a dozen times over the last several decades... makes one very suspicous about their history of "proven" arguments which, when I read them, didn't seem very "proven"... however after several revisions their arguments keep getting better and better, but always with some fallacy but lately, I noted outright "lying" in these articles to cover up these fallacies... Temperature change occurs BEFORE measurable CO2 elevations, not vice versa... not something Al Gore wanted to bring up... He made more evidence based on anecdotal evidence which is one of the worst ways to prove something... just because it snows in Vegas doesn't mean we are in global cooling...

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by vec101

So, you really just want a reason to rant, argue with someone, or try to lord over another? Do you even really care about any issues?

What are you talking about? Gratuitously tossing out a phrase like "environazi" is like spitting off a tall building on a crowd below. Claiming that it is directed only at those who deserve it is laughable. Objecting to swinish behavior does not indicate how I feel about 'issues".

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Yeah he just pulled the wool over the eyes of every scientific professional society in America.

The facts about anthropogenic global warming were defined a hundred years ago. Al Gore is irrelevant.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

What are you talking about? Gratuitously tossing out a phrase like "environazi" is like spitting off a tall building on a crowd below. Claiming that it is directed only at those who deserve it is laughable. Objecting to swinish behavior does not indicate how I feel about 'issues".

When they use pictures such as the one I posted they most certainly deserve it. When an image like that is used the person using it is either too ignorant to understand what they are looking at in which case they have absolutely no right to be discussing the issue or they are purposely trying to deceive the public.

The public deserves to be told the truth backed up by facts and the media is most certainly not doing. If you are using misrepresentations, exaggerations or outright lies to back up your argument to purposely manipulate the public you most certainly deserve the tag "envrionazi".

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Like any other scientific research that I read on a constant basis and have to evaluate... State your arguments, state your facts, state your reasoning, and state the counterpoints... recheck their facts as they tend to leave a few of them out... then read an opposing viewpoint and critique it and then read other viewpoints until you find the person who bests answers the question... Then using Occam's razer, the simplest explanation is often the right explanation and evaluate their "science" with it... Then explore why the other side has been deceitful in its explanations or intentional lack thereof... I find it strange that when one side is open to debate, the other side is unwilling... I would like a televised debate of the issue with experts from both sides presenting evidence and exposing myths... I have noticed that the theory behind "why" CO2 causes global warming has changed probably a dozen times over the last several decades... makes one very suspicous about their history of "proven" arguments which, when I read them, didn't seem very "proven"... however after several revisions their arguments keep getting better and better, but always with some fallacy but lately, I noted outright "lying" in these articles to cover up these fallacies... Temperature change occurs BEFORE measurable CO2 elevations, not vice versa... not something Al Gore wanted to bring up... He made more evidence based on anecdotal evidence which is one of the worst ways to prove something... just because it snows in Vegas doesn't mean we are in global cooling...

That's kind of what I thought, no technical background at all.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

That's kind of what I thought, no technical background at all.

No technical background? You know very little of me and the articles that I am published in medical journals... You only show your true colors with your asinine comments and contempt when opposing viewpoints contradict your own idea of how the world should work... no surprise you believe in more ideology than actual reality...

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

No technical background? You know very little of me and the articles that I am published in medical journals... You only show your true colors with your asinine comments and contempt when opposing viewpoints contradict your own idea of how the world should work... no surprise you believe in more ideology than actual reality...

Like I said, you've confirmed my suspicions that you have no technical background or ability to actually understand the issues being discussed. But don't worry I still support your right to an opinion, no matter how silly that opinion might be.

[thecoalman]

I wouldn't worry about him evilnewbie, he's just frustrated because every major point he's tried to make in this thread and the other one has been blown out of the water. Probably trying to get it locked.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

When they use pictures such as the one I posted they most certainly deserve it. When an image like that is used the person using it is either too ignorant to understand what they are looking at in which case they have absolutely no right to be discussing the issue or they are purposely trying to deceive the public.

The public deserves to be told the truth backed up by facts and the media is most certainly not doing. If you are using misrepresentations, exaggerations or outright lies to back up your argument to purposely manipulate the public you most certainly deserve the tag "envrionazi".

Oh I get it! Yes, you're right! Since "they" are out to get you, "they" deserve being called bad names! It's the only rational adult response when "they" get out of hand.

[thecoalman]

Perhsps you misunderstood their fatchance but I'm not referring to every person that is an environmentalist obviously, therefore they need a name. I would never consider lumping all enviromntalist into a single crowd. If I were to call all enviromentalists "environazis" it would be no different than calling all Muslim's terrorists which we know is not the case.

I like environmentalism as it has brought many issues to the public's attention that require it. I'm an environmentalist myself to some extent but I keep things practical and reasonable. However as is common in many groups you'll have those that will hijack a movement to meet their own needs. The title actually fits quite nicely if you know your history. The Nazi's used lies and deceit quite effectively to further their own cause and gain support from the German people.