Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2010, 02:42 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,458 posts, read 4,179,049 times
Reputation: 760

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wenge2ful View Post
Cameron is a Canadian antiamerican element .

We should see his movies,if good & disregard the director...
Like most of the Hollywood folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2010, 03:06 PM
 
531 posts, read 336,333 times
Reputation: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
hahaha O MAN POOR LADY he just destroyed her and she knew it, she had no idea what he was talking about
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 03:55 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,438,814 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
This does explain it. Great find, thanks.
Monckton is a pompous individual, don't you think? What's so great about his deliberately humiliating another person?

He likes to quote the NOAA and use it as his bell weather to substantiate his 'argument'; I would like to hear Monckton explain this:

" "The evidence in this report [in which hundreds of scientific academics support the validity of climate change] would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service. "

Mind you, that Monckton also berated the woman for not reading or quoting academic studies. There you have yet another report from the NOAA on the subject. Apparently, he conveniently didn't read this report.

Somewhat contradictory. It's a classic technique, debating by honing in on minutiae and brow-beating someone who is clearly less educated. I don't find that to be funny or worthy of any kind of admiration.

I Googled the OP's title: J-C- Challenges, etc. I only checked the first seven pages of returns and found that every single site was a right-wing conservative political site with a specific agenda, or a right-wing extremists' site.

Can the OP find one legitimate news organization, be it of any political leaning, that describes this "debate". Anything from James Cameron himself? I looked, but not terribly hard.

Otherwise, it's just more right-wing extremist posturing. Rather than debate scientific theories on the subject, you are twisting it into yet another anti-Administration thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 04:21 PM
 
Location: The Heartland
4,458 posts, read 4,179,049 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
Monckton is a pompous individual, don't you think? What's so great about his deliberately humiliating another person?

He likes to quote the NOAA and use it as his bell weather to substantiate his 'argument'; I would like to hear Monckton explain this:

" "The evidence in this report [in which hundreds of scientific academics support the validity of climate change] would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service. "

Mind you, that Monckton also berated the woman for not reading or quoting academic studies. There you have yet another report from the NOAA on the subject. Apparently, he conveniently didn't read this report.

Somewhat contradictory. It's a classic technique, debating by honing in on minutiae and brow-beating someone who is clearly less educated. I don't find that to be funny or worthy of any kind of admiration.

I Googled the OP's title: J-C- Challenges, etc. I only checked the first seven pages of returns and found that every single site was a right-wing conservative political site with a specific agenda, or a right-wing extremists' site.

Can the OP find one legitimate news organization, be it of any political leaning, that describes this "debate". Anything from James Cameron himself? I looked, but not terribly hard.

Otherwise, it's just more right-wing extremist posturing. Rather than debate scientific theories on the subject, you are twisting it into yet another anti-Administration thread.
James Cameron Ducks Climate Debate



I found this on the first page of a Google search.

And a liberal calling Monckton pompous and humiliating is the pot calling the kettle ebony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 04:34 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,639,943 times
Reputation: 20027
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
then bails out at last minute

After setting up the public global warming debate, Cameron and his negotiator then changed formats multiple times and initially said it would be open to the media and then said he would only participate if it was private with no recording devices. The skeptics agreed to all the changes. According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well.

I wonder why?
probably because the natural climate change people would mop the debate floor with the man made change nitwits, and they know it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 04:52 PM
 
2,673 posts, read 3,235,676 times
Reputation: 1996
I don't look to Hollywood to grasp a general understanding the multi-scientific disciplines and complexities of climate change. I sure don't pay heed to some keyboard army of Joe geologists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 05:05 PM
 
20,393 posts, read 12,287,969 times
Reputation: 10168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post
Monckton is a pompous individual, don't you think? What's so great about his deliberately humiliating another person?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina View Post

He likes to quote the NOAA and use it as his bell weather to substantiate his 'argument'; I would like to hear Monckton explain this:

" "The evidence in this report [in which hundreds of scientific academics support the validity of climate change] would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service. "

Mind you, that Monckton also berated the woman for not reading or quoting academic studies. There you have yet another report from the NOAA on the subject. Apparently, he conveniently didn't read this report.

Somewhat contradictory. It's a classic technique, debating by honing in on minutiae and brow-beating someone who is clearly less educated. I don't find that to be funny or worthy of any kind of admiration.

I Googled the OP's title: J-C- Challenges, etc. I only checked the first seven pages of returns and found that every single site was a right-wing conservative political site with a specific agenda, or a right-wing extremists' site.

Can the OP find one legitimate news organization, be it of any political leaning, that describes this "debate". Anything from James Cameron himself? I looked, but not terribly hard.

Otherwise, it's just more right-wing extremist posturing. Rather than debate scientific theories on the subject, you are twisting it into yet another anti-Administration thread.



…Where to begin with this post? LOL>

To start with you invalidate Monkton not because he is wrong but because as you say he is “pompous”

Does pomposity somehow invalidate the accuracy of Monkton’s argument?

Next you point out that Monkton quotes NOAA then point out that NOAA is solidly behind AGW. The funny thing here is that NOAA’s solid defense of AGW does not undo Monkton’s argument. It actually REINFORCES it. Monkton does this all the time. He uses data directly from AGW proponents then proves by their own data that they are wrong.

I can assure you that Monkton has read every available report from the AGW crowd. No one challenges that. As for “legitimate” news orgs, just look at the Cameron publicists comments. Clearly JC backed out of this debate and clearly JC is the one who wanted the debate to begin with.

Nice try but you have failed to invalidate both Monkton’s shredding of a self proclaimed expert from the church of AGW AND the reports that Cameron is a coward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 05:10 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,438,814 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
I found this on the first page of a Google search.
Yes, that's what I just said. How is this news organization different than what I said it was? It quotes the same sentences as the link in the original post. Same ol', same ol'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT View Post
And a liberal calling Monckton pompous and humiliating is the pot calling the kettle ebony.
Getting personal, are you? Now I know why you appreciate individuals like Monckton.

So, are you talking about Cameron [OP of this thread, remember] or do you want to talk about me, the Obama Administration, liberals, what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 05:21 PM
 
296 posts, read 227,162 times
Reputation: 55
English Lords are funny people...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2010, 05:33 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,438,814 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
…Where to begin with this post? LOL>

To start with you invalidate Monkton not because he is wrong but because as you say he is “pompous”
Wrong. That's my personal opinion of his behaviour. His use of NOAA studies is contradictory because he ignores the studies that NOAA have published and supported concerning the existence of GW. Those are two different issues which you are confusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
Nice try but you have failed to invalidate both Monkton’s shredding of a self proclaimed expert from the church of AGW AND the reports that Cameron is a coward.
Where in the video does this woman proclaim herslef an expert? You cannot show that, and are clearly being less than accurate. She states that she hasn't read the academic reports, but instead takes the word of Greenpeace. That, to you, means someone is proclaiming themselves an expert?

Secondly, you probably enjoy seeing people being shredded. I do not. I've already discussed that. Do not confuse it with Monckton's (note: his name in Monckton, not Monkton) stance on climate change. This was no debate of equals as you well know. He was posturing for the cameras as he is given to do - as is every politician. That has nothing to do with climate change. They are two separate things. Can you not see the difference?

Further, Monckton has no formal scientific training. He is an excellent and charismatic debater. But he is not a scientist. I'd love to hear him debate an actual climatologist or geologist. Oh heck, even a meteorologist would do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top