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.
Say we can't affect the environment is just the latest stage of denial.
That is not the position I hold, rather my position is simply that we do not have any conclusive evidence to support the political and public assertions being made about our effects on it.
Our problem is with politics playing a role in science, personal bias fast tracking conclusions, poor documentation and proper due diligence in the field, a media base purporting consensus above scientific process and a public that is more concerned about being part of the right side regardless if that side is right.
I keep hearing calls of denial, yet every one of those calls are perfect examples of denial. They do not operate at any logical level and at it often appears as that of immature teenagers ripping on everyone because they are not a part of the "cool" crowd.
In truth, it is a standard example of how mob ignorance can drive issues.
I have news for you. We've already had a massive impact on the land and the water on this planet. Why do you think it's difficult that humans can impact the atmosphere, just enough to influence small changes in something as dynamic as temperature?
Can you please provide this "massive impact" data and properly show the links to which makes man the cause? Please provide the research data, not news reports, summaries without the data, or conclusions without supporting premises.
Can you please provide this "massive impact" data and properly show the links to which makes man the cause? Please provide the research data, not news reports, summaries without the data, or conclusions without supporting premises.
You want reseach data? Is that your rebuttle to everything? Sigh...
Environmental Science News and Technology, published by the American Chemical Society, has plenty of info. Have fun.
I suggest it is possible, I do not conclude it is the case. You on the other hand conclude without evidence to support your accusation. All you have as evidence is that McIntyre once worked in mineral exploration (yet currently does not), yet can provide nothing more than that as evidence. You have no links of income support or any real shred of evidence to support your claim.
The problem with your position is that it is irrelevant to the data. That is, even if McIntryre was being funded by "Big Oil", it doesn't change the evidence of the data which HAS shown people like Mann, Brifta, Hansen, etc... to be faulty in their assessments.
You would know this if you were even vaguely informed on the issues, but the problem is that you are not operating at the level of the issues, rather you comfortably swirl around in political and unethical application of debate.
Again, if you wish to contest his data, by all means, do so. I am willing to discuss it, just as I am willing to discuss the "data" of anyone you provide. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than playing a political patsy who is uninformed spreading rumor and gossip.
Gee, sorry I can't find his current resume.
I have no idea if he's currently getting funding and I don't really care. He's probably retired and is only one GW player with a BS out of hundreds, if not thousands.
I'm sure you know more about your hero than I care to know. He's on wiki if you wanna know more about his squash talents.
That is not the position I hold, rather my position is simply that we do not have any conclusive evidence to support the political and public assertions being made about our effects on it.
Our problem is with politics playing a role in science, personal bias fast tracking conclusions, poor documentation and proper due diligence in the field, a media base purporting consensus above scientific process and a public that is more concerned about being part of the right side regardless if that side is right.
I keep hearing calls of denial, yet every one of those calls are perfect examples of denial. They do not operate at any logical level and at it often appears as that of immature teenagers ripping on everyone because they are not a part of the "cool" crowd.
In truth, it is a standard example of how mob ignorance can drive issues.
Gee, sorry I can't find his current resume.
I have no idea if he's currently getting funding and I don't really care. He's probably retired and is only one GW player with a BS out of hundreds, if not thousands.
I'm sure you know more about your hero than I care to know. He's on wiki if you wanna know more about his squash talents.
How interesting, you have no clue about him and yet you easily jump on the bandwagon of calling him deviously motivated by oil companies? Then you have the arrogance to imply anyone who questions the current acceptance of AGW hypothesis as being in denial? You disregarded him out of pure willingness to blindly accept the gossip claimed of him and you can post in this thread with a straight face?
Again, you have no clue about what you are talking about and are merely spreading more garbage about the issue by letting talking point sites inform you of what you should think while never informing yourself truly about the details of the issue. Sad, and pathetic really, but it only proves my point about the ignorance in this issue.
How interesting, you have no clue about him and yet you easily jump on the bandwagon of calling him deviously motivated by oil companies? Then you have the arrogance to imply anyone who questions the current acceptance of AGW hypothesis as being in denial? You disregarded him out of pure willingness to blindly accept the gossip claimed of him and you can post in this thread with a straight face?
Again, you have no clue about what you are talking about and are merely spreading more garbage about the issue by letting talking point sites inform you of what you should think while never informing yourself truly about the details of the issue. Sad, and pathetic really, but it only proves my point about the ignorance in this issue.
Nomander, you are truly a barrel of laughs. Are you McIntyre? Maybe you can give me some squash pointers, my drive is way off.
The NAS panel actually agreed with McIntyre and McKitrick on their findings, so I am not sure what your comment is referring to there. The AAAS on the other hand has acted rather unprofessionally concerning proper data archiving when at complete odds with the actual issues (Mann's refusal to release data for replication while the AAAS was claiming everything was being handled properly).
Mob is what I would call the ignorance that is spread via the public. The people who only read surface summaries, talking point sites, and then go off to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with them.
If you would like, we could discuss the NAS Panels findings and also discuss some issues with AAAS positions on data validation and archiving?
I'm not saying that his background is proof of bias. I just found it interesting your hero with a BS in math worked for a mining company for 30 years and did some consulting for an oil company. It's relevant but I know it's not proof.
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.
