Tell me again that the earth is warming. (choice, myth)

[Aenea]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

I'm telling you Yoss, Global warming is a religion based on hate or envy. Let's don't confuse the issue with facts, just repeat after me in a monotone, Al Gore good, corporations bad.........

This of course leads to a horrible conundrum, because Al Gore launched Generation Investment Management LLP and serves as the chairman of that corporation. So is G.I.M. good or bad?

[tomspug]

He serves as a chairman of an environmental corporation? Great. Is anyone even aware of WHICH major environmental groups actually support Al Gore. Last time I checked, he's actually not very popular with them.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

I thought I did.
You are acting like the very side you condemn.

I see what you mean now. It took me by surprise since this was my only post in the thread, so it was hard to see ow it could equate to doing what I had condemned previously, if you see what I mean.

Of course, I beg to differ, since I haven't actually condemned anyone. I merely pointed out that the weight of rather credible, prestigious, opinion is on the other side.

The EPA has been hopelessly politicized from the early 1990s.

I guess I would say that politicized is too vague a term. It's one thing for a government agency to be influenced by administration agendas, and another thing for an explicitly biased advocacy group to claim some kind of objectivity. the former may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot more credible than the latter.

Where did I equate them?

By calling me hypocritical, that is, by implying that the two sides are treating each other the same way.

Do you think that the skeptics do not rely on science?

What skeptics? I'd have to take them one by one. Some of them are mistaken, some distorting the results, some anti-scientific--each one is different. Some are good scientists doing good work, but their data and results differ greatly from the mainstream, which raises legitimate questions about their implications and their methods.

I can throw just as much scientific fodder as you, if not more.

I am not a climatologist. My point in general is that when one is not a specialist in an area, such as Biology, Epidemiology, Cosmology--or Climatology, then one is treading dangerous ground by challenging the consensus in that field. Obviously, the consensus of the world's climatologists know a lot more about the world's climate than me, or than Rev. Rick.

Again with this skew.
Where did I say they were symmetrical?
It is skewed, but not the way you might think.

Shall I dredge up the statistic showing which side of the debate receives the lions share of funding?

I expect it's the one that the scientific mainstream thinks is correct.

Or should I simply point out that you are baselessly insulting scientific research groups because of their results?

It's not their results, and it's not scientific research groups. It's the oil companies and their mouth pieces.

That you dismiss the scientists who have the gall to disagree with the perceived norm as junk science speaks volumes about the real problem of the issue. Politicization.
Shall I dredge up the statistic of scientists which agree with global warming and point out that the majority is flat neutral on whether we caused the warming? I will if you want, but that is an entirely moot point.

I believe you're mistaken.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

I'm telling you Yoss, Global warming is a religion based on hate or envy. Let's don't confuse the issue with facts, just repeat after me in a monotone, Al Gore good, corporations bad.........

Rick, you are acting just as bad as the other side.

Originally Posted by Autodidact

I see what you mean now. It took me by surprise since this was my only post in the thread, so it was hard to see ow it could equate to doing what I had condemned previously, if you see what I mean.

Of course, I beg to differ, since I haven't actually condemned anyone. I merely pointed out that the weight of rather credible, prestigious, opinion is on the other side.

The classic skeptic response you see in the news is 'there is a bias'.
And there is. I am surprised FOX has not jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Telling people they are all going to die sells very well.

I guess I would say that politicized is too vague a term. It's one thing for a government agency to be influenced by administration agendas, and another thing for an explicitly biased advocacy group to claim some kind of objectivity. the former may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot more credible than the latter.

The EPA is arguably one the most deplorable organizations in terms of methodology. What? The effects of second hand smoking weren't significant at the 1% alpha level?
Did I say 1%? I meant 5%
Never mind that they were probably right. Its still botched methodology. They have their opinions pre formed, and I therefore don't give a damn what they think.

By calling me hypocritical, that is, by implying that the two sides are treating each other the same way.

Sorry if I gave that impressive

What skeptics?

*raises hand*
But not in the way you might think. To date, nobody has successfully addressed my points, which are irrelevant to whether global warming is happening and whether we are causing it.

I'd have to take them one by one. Some of them are mistaken, some distorting the results, some anti-scientific--each one is different. Some are good scientists doing good work, but their data and results differ greatly from the mainstream, which raises legitimate questions about their implications and their methods.

Not particularly. Most of the data seen on the news networks are old, rehashed, or outdated. The amount of actual datacollected is fairly consistent. Can't mess with cold numbers too easily. The problem is, the data has a nasty tendency to disagree with our delicate computer models

I am not a climatologist. My point in general is that when one is not a specialist in an area, such as Biology, Epidemiology, Cosmology--or Climatology, then one is treading dangerous ground by challenging the consensus in that field.

Really?
I can think of one recent one. One of the experts in the field of sea level research basically called the IPCC report a pile of **** in terms of projected sea level increase.

I expect it's the one that the scientific mainstream thinks is correct.

I linked to the report before in at least 4 other threads. I dislike going over the same points again and again
The majority position on global warming is: 1. the earth is warming.
That's it. Are we causing it? A small faction says yes, and a smaller faction says no. They are just the most vocal of the two.

It's not their results, and it's not scientific research groups. It's the oil companies and their mouth pieces. I believe you're mistaken.

That is useless arguing. I could just as easily say that people who support global warming are mouth pieces for the solar power, ethanol, and energy industry as well.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Rick, you are acting just as bad as the other side.

I never posted that! I have never typed monotone or repeat after me, those are not my words! The person who quoted me is banned, I can only guess why.