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.
Again. Where were his sources about the Lindzen claim?
His source is he's a respected journalist with 20+ years of experience and acclaim. Journalists are afforded a certain amount of trust by the public, and what's more is that he was a journalist BEFORE journalism went the way of sensationalism and online blogs.
If you can prove he's lying, go right ahead... but digging up lies and pathetic attempts at character assassination like 'OMG HE SAID HE WON A PULITZER' don't do that.
And yes, the burden of proof is on you-- you are claiming he is lying about what he reported, now you have to prove it.
His source is he's a respected journalist with 20+ years of experience and acclaim. Journalists are afforded a certain amount of trust by the public, and what's more is that he was a journalist BEFORE journalism went the way of sensationalism and online blogs.
If you can prove he's lying, go right ahead... but digging up lies and pathetic attempts at character assassination like 'OMG HE SAID HE WON A PULITZER' don't do that.
And yes, the burden of proof is on you-- you are claiming he is lying about what he reported, now you have to prove it.
You cited him, It's up to you to prove he's telling the truth about Lindzen. The point is he is a BIASED SOURCE on the subject which is exactly what you accused me of by posting an article from Forbes.
I didn't define these terms I just knew what they were before I started talking about them.
You should try it sometime.
You failed to factor in the alarmism which is utterly ridiculous because absolutely none of us would be here talking about his on the POLITICAL section of City Data if it were purely an academic discussion about parsing the correct scientific definition of AGW.
It's POLITICAL because tens of billions are spent on this yearly
It's POLITICAL because we are being told we have to act fast and there is not much time.
It's POLITICAL because science has become corrupted by politics, activism, dogma and greed.
If you disagree. I have to ask what YOUR reason for discussing it here is. Are you just here to troll and start pissing contests with your constant strawman arguments and nonsense or do you actually have something to contribute?
You cited him, It's up to you to prove he's telling the truth about Lindzen. The point is he is a BIASED SOURCE on the subject which is exactly what you accused me of by posting an article from Forbes.
Your article on Forbes was clearly marked OPINION. Right below James Taylor's picture you can see a little disclaimer where Forbes completely detaches themselves from the claptrap he's spewing, reading: 'Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own'. This means he is NOT a journalist, he is a PR man who has paid for space on the site. I could write an article about the world being flat, Jesus being gay or bigfoot being real and get it published in the same manner if I had enough money.
Gelbspan on the other hand IS a journalist with an extensive history writing for multiple newspapers and magazines, who does NOT have to pay for space and whose reports are NOT clearly marked opinion. The newspapers pay HIM, not the other way around.
Your article on Forbes was clearly marked OPINION. Right below James Taylor's picture you can see a little disclaimer where Forbes completely detaches themselves from the claptrap he's spewing, reading: 'Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own'. This means he is NOT a journalist, he is a PR man who has paid for space on the site. I could write an article about the world being flat, Jesus being gay or bigfoot being real and get it published in the same manner if I had enough money.
Gelbspan on the other hand IS a journalist with an extensive history writing for multiple newspapers and magazines, who does NOT have to pay for space and whose reports are NOT clearly marked opinion. The newspapers pay HIM, not the other way around.
This is an important distinction.
...and he makes accusations without backing them up with sources.
You failed to factor in the alarmism which is utterly ridiculous because absolutely none of us would be here talking about his on the POLITICAL section of City Data if it were purely an academic discussion about parsing the correct scientific definition of AGW.
Even nobodies with too much time on their hands need to know what they're talking about before having a conversation. It's called communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
It's POLITICAL because tens of billions are spent on this yearly
It's POLITICAL because we are being told we have to act fast and there is not much time.
It's POLITICAL because science has become corrupted by politics, activism, dogma and greed.
Does this mean we can start avoiding all the PR sites and focus exclusively on sites that are actually respected science publications? I don't mean skepticalscience, MSNBC, or whatever... I mean things like National Geographic, ScientificAmerican, etc... basically, anything where non-controversial scientists are simply explaining their projects and findings.
I hope so, because it will help my arguments immensely and save everyone a lot of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
If you disagree. I have to ask what YOUR reason for discussing it here is. Are you just here to troll and start pissing contests with your constant strawman arguments and nonsense or do you actually have something to contribute?
I have already posted far more legitimate information on AGW, denialism, observed effects, and predicted effects that you ever have, but you have ignored it all and posted exclusively right-wing propaganda, BS blogs and insults. I have responded to these too, and you have largely ignored every single valid point I have made while aggressively refusing to even understand what I am posting. I mean, I get that you want to be right and not lose the argument, but it's getting ridiculous.
Last edited by Spatula City; 11-07-2014 at 12:45 PM..
...and he makes accusations without backing them up with sources.
Journalists ARE sources. He isn't investigating scientific concepts where he needs to supplement his own understanding with interviews, he's attending a conference and reporting on what he has discovered.
You apparently don't since you weren't aware of the alarmism aspect.
AGW isn't alarmism, even if the alarmism exists because of AGW.
You are impervious to communication.
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.
