Climate Deniers, I Want An Explanation (suspect, representation, great, advocate)

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The problem is, you can't really claim a group of people that call themselves "The Client Science Rapid Response Team" as any more credible than Watts up, particularly when some of them have fairly weak academic credentials. They are both cheerleaders for their respective sides, and each will quote science that is favorable to them.

Well... well WELLLLLL

Scott Mandia may not have serous credentials, but he does HAVE A SUPERMAN OUTFIT!!!

Climate Craziness of the Week: Supermandia | Watts Up With That?


lol

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Well... well WELLLLLL

Scott Mandia may not have serous credentials, but he does HAVE A SUPERMAN OUTFIT!!!

Climate Craziness of the Week: Supermandia | Watts Up With That?


lol

Of course he's a climate science expert. He teaches at the local community college after all.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Ferd

interesing sansperous

I said ANTARCTIC Sea Ice was at its learges ever.... you said I lied and link to an article about ice at the OTHER POLE

LOL. Look, im the dyslexic here in this debate, surely you can read better than that!

You are right and I apologize....Note to self...Read more carefully.

[Redraven]

It seems there is a reversal here:

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change:

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Redraven

It seems there is a reversal here:

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change:

The true believers will just cast him aside as some nut although they have used him as a reference in the past.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by SourD

The true believers will just cast him aside as some nut although they have used him as a reference in the past.

that or they will say that we are getting what he said wrong somehow.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The problem is, you can't really claim a group of people that call themselves "The Client Science Rapid Response Team" as any more credible than Watts up particularly when some of them have fairly weak academic credentials. They are both cheerleaders for their respective sides, and each will quote science that is favorable to them.

Prove this. Because at the moment I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I can treat people whose claims are backed up by facts differently than denialists, whose claims are not. And I do.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun

Prove this. Because at the moment I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I can treat people whose claims are backed up by facts differently than denialists, whose claims are not. And I do.

Prove what?

Look, I get it. You don't pretend to be objective. You either can't or won't look into the claims of each side with equal suspicion. You dogmatically adhere to your beliefs, and only want to entertain the cheer leaders for your cause. I get that, and I accept that you'll never have an objective conversation about the issue.

So maybe you shouldn't answer my first question after all, and we'll just end our discussion here.

[sanspeur]

Science and observations support only one side of this argument from what I can see...I'll trust the scientists over people with unsubstantiated opinions because I'm not an idiot.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Science and observations support only one side of this argument from what I can see...

Not true. There are plenty of climate scientists/meteorologists/scientists that question it. They are typically "slapped down" and told to shut up. And if they don't, they are blackballed and discredited.