On 1/24/2010 3:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 2:18 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html
Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?
Sorry, I don't buy into the "we won't discuss it until you agree to our
fundamentally flawed premise" BS.
Then why do you expect it of others?
If you really mean "posting links" discussing an issue that you don't
agree with because the issues raised don't fit in with your POV, fine?
My point of view doesn't enter into it at all. I didn't express one
(other than that I don't find /opinion/ to be evidence of anything other
than itself).
Tell me then, where else are you going to get the HEALTHY skepticism
that is an absolute necessity in ANY _legitimate_ scientific endeavor?
Hmm. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I have a reasonably good
store of skepticism. As you're noticing, my skepticism factor rises
considerably when someone (however correct they may turn out to be)
makes their emotion a visible part of their argument.
You damn sure don't see it discussed in the media in this country.
So what? Do you expect that even a perfectly honest media is capable of
doing anything more than adding a layer of distortion to /whatever/
facts come their way?
On that note, here is somewhat of a gasp HEALTHY "skeptic" who backs
up his skepticism with scientific research and advances an alternative
theory that could well be as valid as CO2 induced AGW:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
... go ahead, since it's posting another link, dismiss/ignore him as
OPINION while you're at it.
Ok.
He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose - would you
consider it "healthy skepticism" for me to consider those?
My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?
Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?
And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.
Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?
AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.
This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.
Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?
That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...
Say what?
Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.
You may be that bored, but I'm not.
Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.
Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/