Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#251
#251
I know that 98 % of climate scientists agree with me. Statistically, that says a lot. I know the ones that don't agree with me wear the nicest suits at meetings and get truckloads of funding from corporate interests. That's what I know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#252
#252
But haven't there always been scientists that were once in a 2% minority that were over time proven right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#253
#253
IPorange said:
I know that 98 % of climate scientists agree with me. Statistically, that says a lot. I know the ones that don't agree with me wear the nicest suits at meetings and get truckloads of funding from corporate interests. That's what I know.Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think this is the primary thing one has to worry about - the "tobacco" scientists and all their analogues.

I mean, I just read the other day that Fred Singer also testified in front of Congress denying the ozone hole.

A lot of "tobacco" scientists wear a few hats. Lindzen too will tell you the smoking and health data have no statistical correlation. :crazy:
 
#254
#254
IPorange said:
I know that 98 % of climate scientists agree with me. Statistically, that says a lot. I know the ones that don't agree with me wear the nicest suits at meetings and get truckloads of funding from corporate interests. That's what I know.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The scorn with which you regard AGW skeptics is one of the many reasons why I can't jump on board with your so-called "consensus". It's similar to the reason why I am agnostic when it comes to religion, too many hypocrites claiming that they hold a monopoly on the truth.
 
#255
#255
I'm impressed Gibbs! You used almost the same post in two different threads!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#256
#256
Oldvol75 said:
But haven't there always been scientists that were once in a 2% minority that were over time proven right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not when observation and science were on the majority's side.

I am not an Al Gore fan, but he's right in saying that the facts are overwhelming, and in.
 
#257
#257
Oldvol75 said:
I'm impressed Gibbs! You used almost the same post in two different threads!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I know. It's new knowledge for me, and I like to share.

Plus, I get to use "real world outside the back door" with new emphasis.

:hi:
 
#258
#258
IPorange said:
Not when observation and science were on the majority's side.

I am not an Al Gore fan, but he's right in saying that the facts are overwhelming, and in.
Click to expand...

So when the planets revolved around the earth and then someone believed that all the planets revolved around the sun, I believe he was a minority and all science said the exact opposite. Different views!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#259
#259
IPorange said:
Not when observation and science were on the majority's side.

I am not an Al Gore fan, but he's right in saying that the facts are overwhelming, and in.
Click to expand...

And it's interesting that you believe that a majority is always right! Hmmmmm!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#260
#260
MG1968 said:
The scorn with which you regard AGW skeptics is one of the many reasons why I can't jump on board with your so-called "consensus". It's similar to the reason why I am agnostic when it comes to religion, too many hypocrites claiming that they hold a monopoly on the truth.
Click to expand...

It's not scorn, it's just obvious that they aren't impartial, and are hired guns.
 
#262
#262
Oldvol75 said:
So when the planets revolved around the earth and then someone believed that all the planets revolved around the sun, I believe he was a minority and all science said the exact opposite. Different views!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The people who didn't believe him were hired guns of the Church, were they not? Science has only been untethered for the last 150 to 200 years.
 
#264
#264
IPorange said:
The people who didn't believe him were hired guns of the Church, were they not? Science has only been untethered for the last 150 to 200 years.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone that opposes certain views "hired guns"? Was Darwin a hired gun when he came up with his theory? I believe he ruffled a few feathers when his views came out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#265
#265
IPorange said:
It's interesting that you always seem to go with what you "feel" and "believe" rather than reality. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

When I go out my back door and it's cold, I get a coat. And as too my beliefs, I was there when it happened, so I guess I ought to know!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#266
#266
Oldvol75 said:
Why is everyone that opposes certain views "hired guns"? Was Darwin a hired gun when he came up with his theory? I believe he ruffled a few feathers when his views came out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The phrase "hired gun" means someone who was hired for a particular purpose, and is clearly an agent of their employer.

Darwin had no employer, so the answer would be "no."
 
#267
#267
Oldvol75 said:
Why is everyone that opposes certain views "hired guns"? Was Darwin a hired gun when he came up with his theory? I believe he ruffled a few feathers when his views came out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

IP acts as if there isn't a lot of money being thrown around on his side of the debate.
 
#268
#268
Oldvol75 said:
When I go out my back door and it's cold, I get a coat. And as too my beliefs, I was there when it happened, so I guess I ought to know!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And this has nothing to do with climate change. Thus, and I don't mean this in the insulting way it will be taken, you are ignorant to the subject in which you are weighing in on.
 
#269
#269
IPorange said:
The phrase "hired gun" means someone who was hired for a particular purpose, and is clearly an agent of their employer.

Darwin had no employer, so the answer would be "no."
Click to expand...

But were those that were opposed to Darwin be considered hired guns then?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#270
#270
MG1968 said:
IP acts as if there isn't a lot of money being thrown around on his side of the debate.
Click to expand...

There's not as much as some make it out to be. It's more like everyone throws in some tangential way in which their study relates to climate change, and then funding to it is labeled as "climate change funding" even if it's about ant behavior or commuter traffic.
 
#272
#272
Notice how we aren't even talking about facts or science right now. How it's purely philosophical in nature. That's what opposition to climate change is: philosophical. Political. It goes against traditional beliefs. It offends people's values.
 
#273
#273
IPorange said:
And this has nothing to do with climate change. Thus, and I don't mean this in the insulting way it will be taken, you are ignorant to the subject in which you are weighing in on.
Click to expand...

So now we go to the name calling, typical! LOL! I think I've seen this before! I believe it's with those that oppose certain majorities!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#274
#274
Oldvol. What do you know about climate, other than putting your coat on?

So then how is it an insult?

I'm ignorant about Taoism. NASCAR. Lots of stuff.
 
#275
#275
IPorange said:
Notice how we aren't even talking about facts or science right now. How it's purely philosophical in nature. That's what opposition to climate change is: philosophical. Political. It goes against traditional beliefs. It offends people's values.
Click to expand...

what's the point in backing up our skepticism with links to science? You've already made your line in the sand clear, AGW is real, settled and convincing. Any who oppose that POV are "hired guns", dentists, and doddering old men.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top