Thread: 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Originally Posted by Iolo

All science shows that human-produced glabal overheating is a fact. Interested parties - polluters and limelight-hoggers - pretend otherwise, and the forelock-tuggers say what their masters tell 'em. It is too obvious to be worth talking about.

So you say...

Real Science suggests that the Human "element" is very little. Small enough in fact to say that it is "negligible".

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

The UN reports that they have about 2,500 "scientists" who state there is "global warming". There are more than 31,000 scientists who state otherwise. DO THE MATH. That's about 8% vs. 92%! 8% who are deciding what is "real" when 92% disagree. Something is very, very wrong here!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming

By KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

(continued at link provided)

Originally Posted by Gaar

So you say...

Real Science suggests that the Human "element" is very little. Small enough in fact to say that it is "negligible".

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

The UN reports that they have about 2,500 "scientists" who state there is "global warming". There are more than 31,000 scientists who state otherwise. DO THE MATH. That's about 8% vs. 92%! 8% who are deciding what is "real" when 92% disagree. Something is very, very wrong here!

Sorry but are you POSSIBLY suggesting that "real science" can be found on a website called

"Globalwamingisafarce.com" ?

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Sorry but are you POSSIBLY suggesting that "real science" can be found on a website called

"Globalwamingisafarce.com" ?

You understand that challenging the source rather than the information provided is not a legitimate debate tactic, right?

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

no, sorry but apart from this "follow the American" game that the likes of Alan (spittoooie) Jones would have us do - calling people with opposing political views names and basically making fun of them because it sells advertising time to be controversial

Why ANYONE would listen to someone like him I have no idea

You can`t blame anyone else for our political antagonism, it`s home grown. I have no idea what you are talking about re your Alan Jones comment. However it seems that you hate him so much, that in your mind, he can`t possibly do anything right, therefore you use a comparison to him as an insult, but I forgive you.

The point is, AGW is a religion more than a science. Questioning the AGW church isn`t meant to hurt the feelings of believers, it`s just human nature to inquire into unsubstantiated theories.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Want to demonstrate where we are doing that?

Or is that another Alan Jones straw man?

It`s as plain as the butterfly on your face sweetie.

Here`s that Alan Jones again. Have you got a crush on him? Does he wear budgie smugglers?

Originally Posted by aussiefree2ride

It`s as plain as the butterfly on your face sweetie.

Here`s that Alan Jones again. Have you got a crush on him? Does he wear budgie smugglers?

Budgie smugglers. LOL had to look that one up. Had to look up Alan Jones too.

Oh mang, yous guys.

Originally Posted by Gaar

You understand that challenging the source rather than the information provided is not a legitimate debate tactic, right?

I'm sorry, but no. Challenging the information and the source of that information often amounts to the same thing. True, you can get good information from a bad source(ie website), but in most of those cases the bad website links to the good source, so there's no reason to even mention the bad website in the first place.

Its the debater's responsibility to find the best source of information he/she is using because obviously they risk being dismissed using a kooky source. If the only source the debater can find to support their proposition is a kooky source, then they should reconsider their proposition. Or admit it is a personal bias.


I think you're misapplying the "attack the argument not the person" principle to sources, "sources" being defined as reported news, public studies and research, etc. These sources are always fair game.

Originally Posted by l4zarus

I'm sorry, but no. Challenging the information and the source of that information often amounts to the same thing. True, you can get good information from a bad source(ie website), but in most of those cases the bad website links to the good source, so there's no reason to even mention the bad website in the first place.

Its the debater's responsibility to find the best source of information he/she is using because obviously they risk being dismissed using a kooky source. If the only source the debater can find to support their proposition is a kooky source, then they should reconsider their proposition. Or admit it is a personal bias.


I think you're misapplying the "attack the argument not the person" principle to sources, "sources" being defined as reported news, public studies and research, etc. These sources are always fair game.

It is known as an Ad Hominem attack, when you simply dismiss an argument by citing the source rather than the information they espouse.

Are you doubting what was said, if so please attempt to refute it because I can support it, as I have shown...

Which part of the statement do you have concerns with? The U.N cites those in agreement, so I will give you a link to the 10's of thousands who disagree, it is called the Oregon petition...

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Care to address what was said, or simply attack who said it?

Originally Posted by Gaar

You understand that challenging the source rather than the information provided is not a legitimate debate tactic, right?

Yes I am and for a very good reason

It is an anonymous blog on the internet

Toilet paper is more useful - even used toilet paper is more useful and hardly contains less (*)(*)(*)(*)

But I am game - if you want to you can prove to me the validity of the site - show me the academic referencing to peer review studies, preferably studies less than 5 years old - that is the usual academic standard