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.
odo seems very defensive and is quick to call anyone who doesn't agree with him stupid. Hmmmm.
Last resort of those who cannot win the argument on facts - they attack their opponents, blame everything on the international capitalist conspiracy, call names, hold their breath until they turn blue ...
Last resort of those who cannot win the argument on facts - they attack their opponents, blame everything on the international capitalist conspiracy, call names, hold their breath until they turn blue ...
Try reading my posts in their totality sometime. I'm actually a voice of reason, logic, and yes skepticism in the dictionary definition.
But I do not BEGIN my argument in the manner the AGW side does. I wait until I have evaluated whether or not someone is reasonable, or yet another poser. I ask questions of those AGW folk with whom I disagree. I post sources.
Funny how the general response from the AGW side is name calling. Funny how the AGW people ALWAYS proclaim "settled" science. Funny how the AGW side claims that the reason for skepticism is funding by Exxon Mobile, as if their sources are not funded by special interests. Funny how the AGW side never feels obligated to answer direct questions about climate, climate history, and the fact that their only argument comes from what they have observed since the end of the Little Ice Age, some 160 years ago.
Tell you what. You want to meet my standard of argument, I will treat those of you who do so with respect.
But if you want to remain a brainwashed tool, I will treat those of you who do so you accordingly.
This is about shutting up journalists who jump to premature conclusions in their headlines (in both camps) so we can all get a clearer picture of how AGW is affecting our planet.
It's great news.
And almost ALL scientists are 'warmers'... they only differ in how they think AGW affects the planet.
A new and improved model to replace the old models that will be programmed with the same data.
Sounds like they are still trying to get the results that were paid for.
Try reading my posts in their totality sometime. I'm actually a voice of reason, logic, and yes skepticism in the dictionary definition.
But I do not BEGIN my argument in the manner the AGW side does. I wait until I have evaluated whether or not someone is reasonable, or yet another poser. I ask questions of those AGW folk with whom I disagree. I post sources.
This is a thread about an article where a researcher at Oxford University (one of the most well-regarded universities in the entire world) and someone who lectures at Princeton University are talking about separating non-AGW influences on weather from non-AGW influences on weather... and the best the denialist side can do is produce zero facts, zero references, insist that AGW is fake, make fun of these two respected researchers with PhDs, 'warmers' in general, and me.
Usually they would wait for some PR response from one of their go-to blogs, but this time they just post the article, ignore it, and go straight to bashing scientists as not being scientific.
Now you're claiming the high road?
LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
Funny how the general response from the AGW side is name calling. Funny how the AGW people ALWAYS proclaim "settled" science. Funny how the AGW side claims that the reason for skepticism is funding by Exxon Mobile, as if their sources are not funded by special interests.
But Exxon actually acknowledges that AGW is real, and they have also acknowledged their own contributions to denialism in the past, which they now consider to be a big mistake.
The reason for this is that unlike most of this board, they understand that AGW is bad for business.
That's right, an oil company is actually admitting that they've financially contributed to denialism and that they now know it was a huge mistake to do so.
They have an entire area of their corporate site dedicated to it:
Funny how the AGW side never feels obligated to answer direct questions about climate, climate history, and the fact that their only argument comes from what they have observed since the end of the Little Ice Age, some 160 years ago.
You are on crack.
This isn't even close to being true.
Quote:
Tell you what. You want to meet my standard of argument, I will treat those of you who do so with respect.
But if you want to remain a brainwashed tool, I will treat those of you who do so you accordingly.
Oh right, your standard... which is so high that you make up debates in your head and call people brainwashed tools.
This is a thread about an article where a researcher at Oxford University (one of the most well-regarded universities in the entire world) and someone who lectures at Princeton University are talking about separating non-AGW influences on weather from non-AGW influences on weather... and the best the denialist side can do is produce zero facts, zero references, insist that AGW is fake, make fun of these two respected researchers with PhDs, 'warmers' in general, and me.
Usually they would wait for some PR response from one of their go-to blogs, but this time they just post the article, ignore it, and go straight to bashing scientists as not being scientific.
Now you're claiming the high road?
LOL.
I don't say Exxon Mobile. Exxon actually acknowledges that AGW is real. The reason for this is that unlike most of this board, they understand that AGW is bad for business.
That's right, an oil company is actually admitting that they've financially contributed to denialism and that they now know it was a huge mistake to do so.
They have an entire area of their corporate site dedicated to it:
odo seems very defensive and is quick to call anyone who doesn't agree with him stupid. Hmmmm.
Oh, you mean like calling people mean, hateful, bigoted and nasty because they don't agree with you? Kind of like that?
Quote:
Read the comments from the leftists in this thread. This is today's modern
leftist mindset. They are mean, hateful, bigoted, and nasty people.
They fit right in with the cd obagger crowd.
Sound familiar? You wrote it.
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.
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.
