CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:16 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
It's just the same old crew trying to drag the whole isue out of science and over to the media again, where they know they can win the fight.


Aside from FOX News and Sky News what media is this that is this forum where the anti-AGW argument is won?


The paper from which the linked article was taken.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63846
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:18 am
 


You make it sound like the media in general is against AGW when it's just a few outlets (relatively speaking.)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:30 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Well I didn't neg rep you, but I did not you did your old post and fade. Come in, launch an attack, and then when called on it, disappear. Why is that? My guess is that you have no clue what you're talking about on global warming. Just parrot what Ezra tells you, is my guess.


Since when is sharing an opinion or someone else's opinion an 'attack'?

Is it an attack when it doesn't jive with your respective opinion?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29429
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:43 am
 


I think that the biggest single contributing factor to global warming is all the people getting hot and bothered in the global warming threads.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:38 am
 


raydan wrote:
I think that the biggest single contributing factor to global warming is all the people getting hot and bothered in the global warming threads.


At this point, I'm happy to get hot and bothered about anything. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29429
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:43 am
 


There's a pill for that...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:51 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
You make it sound like the media in general is against AGW when it's just a few outlets (relatively speaking.)


That wasn't what I was trying to say. What I meant was that the so-called skeptics would rather battle it out in the media, where they can use rhetoric to persuade people to their point of view. In science, rhetoric doesn't work. That's why the skeptics have a tough time.

A skeptic could have just as easily put together the temperature reconstruction donew in this latest paper. It's all data from other studies. Why didn't they?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63846
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:01 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
You make it sound like the media in general is against AGW when it's just a few outlets (relatively speaking.)


That wasn't what I was trying to say. What I meant was that the so-called skeptics would rather battle it out in the media, where they can use rhetoric to persuade people to their point of view. In science, rhetoric doesn't work. That's why the skeptics have a tough time.


Your argument here is contrary to what you and I have seen over the past 20 years with the AGW proponents. They absolutely do depend upon rhetoric with non-scientific arguments about consensus, the debate is over, skeptics should be jailed, and etc.

And they've fought those battles in the media with the best example being Al Gore with his nonsensical An Inconvenient Truth.

AGW started out as a propaganda campaign and it's only fair to fight fire with fire.


Zipperfish wrote:
A skeptic could have just as easily put together the temperature reconstruction donew in this latest paper. It's all data from other studies. Why didn't they?


Why would a skeptic select those studies and not just use different studies?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:43 pm
 


Lemmy wrote:
Jonny_C wrote:
Naw, you don't get to turn this around. All the childishness rests squarely with you. R=UP

[cry]


Here's a (virtual) Kleenex, you petty little man. :D


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:45 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Well I didn't neg rep you, but I did not you did your old post and fade. Come in, launch an attack, and then when called on it, disappear. Why is that? My guess is that you have no clue what you're talking about on global warming. Just parrot what Ezra tells you, is my guess.


Since when is sharing an opinion or someone else's opinion an 'attack'?

Is it an attack when it doesn't jive with your respective opinion?


Thanks for that OTI.

I guess it's an attack when it upsets an AGW stormtrooper. :mrgreen:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:59 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Well I didn't neg rep you, but I did not you did your old post and fade. Come in, launch an attack, and then when called on it, disappear. Why is that? My guess is that you have no clue what you're talking about on global warming. Just parrot what Ezra tells you, is my guess.


I doubt this is the first time you've seen criticism of AGW science, so don't get too upset about it.

I haven't negative repped you either (though there may have been a temptation or two). I don't negative rep anybody.

I also don't feel like digging around for some AGW Chicken Little to associate you to. I'd rather work on the assumption that you can think for yourself.

You may hold AGW very near and dear (like Lemmy). I, on the other hand, have stated before that I am skeptical of AGW. That doesn't mean I don't think it's possible; it means I am not convinced that it is proven.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:29 pm
 


Jonny_C wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Well I didn't neg rep you, but I did not you did your old post and fade. Come in, launch an attack, and then when called on it, disappear. Why is that? My guess is that you have no clue what you're talking about on global warming. Just parrot what Ezra tells you, is my guess.


I doubt this is the first time you've seen criticism of AGW science, so don't get too upset about it.

I haven't negative repped you either (though there may have been a temptation or two). I don't negative rep anybody.

I also don't feel like digging around for some AGW Chicken Little to associate you to. I'd rather work on the assumption that you can think for yourself.

You may hold AGW very near and dear (like Lemmy). I, on the other hand, have stated before that I am skeptical of AGW. That doesn't mean I don't think it's possible; it means I am not convinced that it is proven.


I hold it pretty near and dear, because I've studied it so much, and it's one of the few subjects where I actually know what I'm talking about most of the time. :lol: Sorry for the sourpuss quote and thx for taking the high road on it.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:11 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
I hold it pretty near and dear, because I've studied it so much, and it's one of the few subjects where I actually know what I'm talking about most of the time. :lol: Sorry for the sourpuss quote and thx for taking the high road on it.


Thanks for the overly generous assessment of my post.

I do read your posts on Global Warming with interest.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.