Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In other words, you prefer cherrypicked points and ad hominem attacks than to debate and discussion about the pseudoscience being used by enviro-activists and skeptics alike.

Re: 400 lb addict thing, the point you missed (deliberately?) is credibility. You claim to be working in a lab in order to gain credibility. You've spoken of your education and your employment so others will add weight (pun?) to your arguments. I couldn't care less where you work but if you're going to claim expertise, either back it up or shove it up. I've made no such claims of expertise and I don't pretend to understand the intricate workings of the environment and I've been very clear on that from the beginning.

Likewise, your continued focus on the credentials and/or sponsors of Dr. Ball who is only one skeptic of many but you've cherrypicked this one person because of his flaws to give the false impression that all skeptics are flawed. You haven't poked holes in Dr. Ball's arguments or shown any flaws in his science; you've concentrated only on his credibility. The irony is you're slagging Dr. Ball because he's a public face of the skeptics but the public faces of the AGW movement (the Goreacle and Dr. Suzuki) won't (or can't) debate the science and you're okay with that. Amazing.

-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply to a post in another forum Reply with quote

I am responding to this post here, because McCain is my guy and I don't want to re hijack the topic.


Quote:

Most of the countries "endorsed" AGW in the hopes of scoring some loot from the Kyoto Accord, that wonderful wealth redistribution scheme which does nothing to address the environment.
Most of the major scientific societies know which side their bread is buttered on as well.


Two points. First of all, there are winners and loosers in any change. IF certain countries will get "Kyoto loo", there must be other countries who have to pay this loot. It is a zero sum game. The winners wanting to sign on is a weak argument, but still an argument. It does not explain why the losers are signed on though.

Secondly, if you think that Kyoto is a wonderful weath redistribution scheme, what do you think of the status quo (SP?), Right now wealth is redistributed from the West to

1) Chavez
2) Iran
3) Islamic terrorists
4) Russia.
5) Syria

Furthermore, the law of supply and demand dictates that this will only get worse.

Quote:

Another fine example of excellent spelling and grammar. While I don't normally bother with such,


Okay, that sentence like thing was not the best example of grammar. A couple points though. I type quicky and don't preview my posts. I have never used a spell checker for a post of the internet. A couple questions though. If I don't know how to spell the word "your", find another example where I have mispelled it. Can't ? Then "yer" was probably for effect.

Quote:

Secondly, perhaps it was public opinion and not science that swayed Harper, BUT it did not force Harper to invest all that money in the Artic to prepare for the artic opening up. It did not force Norway, and the USSR to do the same. You may not believe in the those climate models, but Harper, Bush, Putin, Norway and Demark are putting their money behind them.

Actually Harper was talking about Arctic sovereignty before his party moved to deal with climate change... but you don't let little things like "truth" or "facts" get in your way, do you?



Yes Harper was talking about Artic sovereignty before the election. DID I SAY HE DIDN'T ? Another strawman. Instead of the march of the strawmen, why not answer my question. If the climate models are bunk, why are the countries following them.

BTW, Harper's moves are not about total Artic sovereignty, just about the passage. He put military bases in already occupied areas and bought ships that cannot venture into the high arctic.
Nobody disputes Canada's claim to Baffin Island. If he was interested in on sovereignty and not the passage, he should have put the bases in unoccupied areas near the borders (Like the did with Alert) and bought ships capable of going farther north than the North West Passage. (




Quote:

Somehow, I doubt Bush is willing to sewer whoever is chosen as the Republican candidate.


He seems to have been very willing in the past.


Quote:

I use the CCC to describe the assorted "true believers" who are blindly convinced of AGW to the point of resembling a religion. Do you deny such exist?


Quote:

Most of the major scientific societies know which side their bread is buttered on as well.


Yep, science societies have nothing better to do than sit around and conspire to make you drive a Prius so they can get better pocket protectors.
Again, there are winners and losers when research money is allocated. If more goes to global warming, its less for the guy studying electron orbits of Lithium ions.

There always seems to be a giant consipiracy theory. The countries of the world agree on AGW because there is "Kyoto loot". All those scientific organizations agree because of some extra funding. People won't tell the truth because they are intimidated by the CCC. Nobody can seem to do peer reviewed research because some great liberal conspiracy controls all science.

Some points. Conspiracy theories don't work. You can't make a 10 person conspiracy work, much less one involving all the nations on earth. The only people who share this big conspiracy view are ":

1) UFO believers
2) Creation Scientists
3) The Flat Earth Society
4) Liberal "power lines cause cancer"/vaccines cause autism types
5) Elvis fanatics.

Do you like the company your in ?[/quote]
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
In other words, you prefer cherrypicked points and ad hominem attacks than to debate and discussion about the pseudoscience being used by enviro-activists and skeptics alike.


-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

ewise, your continued focus on the credentials and/or sponsors of Dr. Ball who is only one skeptic of many but you've cherrypicked this one person because of his flaws to give the false impression that all skeptics are flawed.


Lets rewind here. Someone posted a list of 400 "prominent scientists" and said that its existence debunked consensus.
I pointed out that the list did not consist of "400 prominent scientists". Dr Ball was an example of someone who I felt was not a "prominent scientist".
While no one directly addresed the point about that silly list, you began your defense of Dr Ball. If you had admitted Dr Ball was flawed to start off, we could have probably avoided this whole bandwidth hogging experience. If you had chosen to argue about other individuals on that list, they would have been the argument.
I did not argue that the whole list of people were not "prominent scientists". I have not argued that there are no "prominent scientists" who oppose AGW. In fact I have said that there are legitimate scientists doing legitimate research and that certain people on here should be quoting them instead of the likes of Dr Ball.

Now, if you wish to argue that the list does in fact contain 400 prominent scientists - go ahead.
If you want to argue Dr Ball is a "prominent scientist"- go ahead.
If some of the statements I have made about Dr Ball are incorrect, please inform me. If that article by Dr Ball was forged by the CCC, let me know.

[/quote]
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
Lets rewind here. Someone posted a list of 400 "prominent scientists" and said that its existence debunked consensus.
I pointed out that the list did not consist of "400 prominent scientists". Dr Ball was an example of someone who I felt was not a "prominent scientist".

Just so we're clear... you cherrypicked one name from a list of 400 which I didn't post and launched ad hominem attacks against him... but I'm the one not debating fairly because I said Dr. Ball is more qualified to speak about the climate than either the Goreacle or Dr. Suzuki? :?

-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Just so we're clear... you cherrypicked one name from a list of 400 which I didn't post and launched ad hominem attacks against him... but I'm the one not debating fairly because I said Dr. Ball is more qualified to speak about the climate than either the Goreacle or Dr. Suzuki?


If you want to talk about the TV weathermen, or the guy who "is working on his Phd" thats fine. Or all the ones who don't have Phd's - thats fine as well. Like I said, Dr Ball was one of many problems I mentioned with that supposed rebutal of consensus.

While probably not in this forum, I have said lots of said things about the "Goreacle" and Dr Suzuki in the past. If the "Goreacle" called himself a "prominent scientist", I would question his credibility as well (just like I did when he made those internet comments).
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 6

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Just what is the experimental basis of global warming?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB