Page 107 of 161 FirstFirst ... 75797103104105106107108109110111117157 ... LastLast
Results 2,651 to 2,675 of 4001
  1. #2651
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    there is plenty out there to convince me the AGCC proponents have a financial stake in making the world believe it exists.

    All those questions were honest, fair questions about what level of evidence you would find acceptable.

    That you can't, or won't answer honest, fair questions says volumes.

    Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

    [Ignores question, goes straight to ad hominems on climate scientists]
    [more ad hominem]
    It isn't going away Cosmored.

    Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
    [more ad hominem].
    The longer this goes on, the more you look like Cosmored.

    Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?

    Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.
    and

    [obfuscation, no answer].

    I have been telling Cosmored and mouse that for years in the moon hoax and evolution threads.

    Unfortunately for you, I am not stating anything. I am asking a fair question, and one that is important when understanding context.

    Claiming one side has some financial incentive, while ignoring the potential financial incentive of the other side or pretending it doesn't exist, is not anyones definition of honest.

    I will say I think you are dishonest. All I have to do to prove that is for you to ignore my honest, fair, easily answered, question, while I honestly answer all of your questions in return.

    The simple yes, or no.

    Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-16-2012 at 05:12 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #2652
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431


    I'm still cracking up over RG making Darrin crack.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  3. #2653
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Although to be fair, it might because Darrin and Yonivore made RG crack first.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  4. #2654
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Alrighty then, boutons.
    Nice ad hominem. If anything both you and boutons are indiscriminate with what you choose as a source. Examples are compelling not being petulant.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  5. #2655
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
    Yes.

    And, I don't know who Cosmored is. Sorry, I'm not that into the various personalities, in here, like some of you are.

    But, yes. People who sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in whether or not their product is perceived as causing harm.

    Al Gore has a financial stake in the opposite.

    So does the IPCC, That Hansen character, and everyone else making money off of the AGCC alarmism.
    Yonivore is offline

  6. #2656
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?
    Nope.

    I'm discounting man-made sources of CO2 appreciably add to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - to the extent is has an affect on global climate.
    Yonivore is offline

  7. #2657
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    But, yes. People who sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in whether or not their product is perceived as causing harm.

    Al Gore has a financial stake in the opposite.

    So does the IPCC, That Hansen character, and everyone else making money off of the AGCC alarmism.

    Yep.
    DarrinS is offline

  8. #2658
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?
    I hope you have better luck getting straight answer than I have had.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #2659
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    What about the insurance industry? Their only interest is mitigating claims not waste money on convincing people that claims are rising

    i also love how you guys always fall bak on Al Gore and try to pigeonhole the 99% of scientists that consider AGW too much of a rish to ignore.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  10. #2660
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I hope you have better luck getting straight answer than I have had.
    See post 2659
    DarrinS is offline

  11. #2661
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    What about the insurance industry? Their only interest is mitigating claims not waste money on convincing people that claims are rising

    i also love how you guys always fall bak on Al Gore and try to pigeonhole the 99% of scientists that consider AGW too much of a rish to ignore.
    The leading figures in AGCC are all compromised. Al Gore is just the biggest fish.

    Name a major proponent of AGCC that isn't compromised by an association with Al Gore, East Anglia University, and or the IPCC; all of whom have lost all credibility with reasonable people.
    Yonivore is offline

  12. #2662
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Yes.

    And, I don't know who Cosmored is. Sorry, I'm not that into the various personalities, in here, like some of you are.

    But, yes. People who sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in whether or not their product is perceived as causing harm.

    Al Gore has a financial stake in the opposite.

    So does the IPCC, That Hansen character, and everyone else making money off of the AGCC alarmism.
    Cosmored is the dolt who claims that the "apollo moon missions were faked in a studio".

    He also has a hard time answering questions directly. It takes you a while to get there, but you are at least not insane.

    Thank you for an answer.

    So, your reason for not believing the alarmists is that "they have money at stake in promoting their views".

    And

    You also agree to the reasonable assertion that fossil fuel companies have a financial stake in downplaying evidence that use of their product could be causing harmful environmental changes. I can buy that.

    For discussion, I can even buy that some people are benefiting from alarmism.

    What about the actual scientists doing the research?

    An awful lot of them seem to believe that we are increasingly affecting our climate on a global scale.

    Are *they* all lying for money? You say there is NO evidence to indicate this.

    That implies a lot of faked data.

    (edit)

    There have been a few studies and polls of actual climate scientists. Generally the more they know about the subject, the less doubt.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/w...ty?_s=PM:WORLD
    The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Ins ute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

    Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
    Yeah, we're going back there.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-16-2012 at 05:35 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #2663
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Although to be fair, it might because Darrin and Yonivore made RG crack first.


    It is very, very hard to be patient and polite when people are being evasive and/or dishonest.

    The backspace key is my friend. (breathes deeply and calmly) If I posted even 1/4 of the hair-pulling, frustrated, snarky things that run through my head....
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #2664
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Cosmored is the dolt who claims that the "apollo moon missions were faked in a studio".

    Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with this ?
    DarrinS is offline

  15. #2665
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    So, your reason for not believing the alarmists is that "they have money at stake in promoting their views".
    That, and the small but, not insignificant, fact that few, if any of their predictions -- to date -- have come true.

    You also agree to the reasonable assertion that fossil fuel companies have a financial stake in downplaying evidence that use of their product could be causing harmful environmental changes. I can buy that.
    This is why you don't get direct answers, you want to take a direct answer and mischaracterize it to fit your purposes.

    Innocent people have a vested interest in proving their innocence.

    Fossil fuel companies have a vested interest in proving their product doesn't cause global climate change. Just ask the coal companies being put out of business by this administration's silly rule on CO2 emissions.

    For discussion, I can even buy that some people are benefiting from alarmism.

    What about the actual scientists doing the research?

    An awful lot of them seem to believe that we are increasingly affecting our climate on a global scale.

    Are *they* all lying for money? You say there is NO evidence to indicate this.

    That implies a lot of faked data.
    It does, doesn't it. Or, as that one scientist put it, a lot of blind obedience to a popular narrative because of the attendant ridicule visited on anyone that dare go against the narrative.

    The polar bear scientist as my example.
    Yonivore is offline

  16. #2666
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654


    It is very, very hard to be patient and polite when people are being evasive and/or dishonest.

    The backspace key is my friend. (breathes deeply and calmly) If I posted even 1/4 of the hair-pulling, frustrated, snarky things that run through my head....

    I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

    Can you give an example of a scientist who you think exemplifies a "healthy skepticism" of catastrophic AGW?
    DarrinS is offline

  17. #2667
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with people who think moon landings were faked?

    Answer the damn question!!!
    DarrinS is offline

  18. #2668
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with this ?
    (looks at the le of the thread again)


    .... um, yes. Yes, I do.

    You seem to be half a step more sane and less sophist than the average truther, but that isn't saying much.

    It says to me that there can be SOME meaningful discussion.

    (edit)

    You would do well to read the OP again.

    I deliniate honest skepticism from quackery, as I have done in the last hundred+ pages. This thread is about the latter.
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #2669
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

    Can you give an example of a scientist who you think exemplifies a "healthy skepticism" of catastrophic AGW?
    Sorry, I missed this one.

    In response:

    YAY!!! a fair honest question. I will look into it.

    I do believe that some of the people on the BEST team were getting there.

    , even some of the things you post meet the threshold at times.

    It exists. If you still want a specific name, I will do some reading.

    Generally the more stilted the language, the less likely it is to be "healthy".
    RandomGuy is offline

  20. #2670
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Sorry, I missed this one.

    In response:

    YAY!!! a fair honest question. I will look into it.

    I do believe that some of the people on the BEST team were getting there.

    , even some of the things you post meet the threshold at times.

    It exists. If you still want a specific name, I will do some reading.

    Generally the more stilted the language, the less likely it is to be "healthy".
    Janet Curry who he knows damn well about because he crows about her every chance he gets.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  21. #2671
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This is why you don't get direct answers, you want to take a direct answer and mischaracterize it to fit your purposes.
    No, I want direct answers because you are evasive and don't like admitting the weaknesses in your arguments even, it seems, to yourself.

    Cognitive dissonance is a that way.

    So we have:

    Leaders of the AGW movement are exaggerating about the problem, because they want money.

    and

    Fossil fuel companies have a massive financial stake in downplaying any evidence that their products are causing global environmental damage from AGW.

    and

    There is *no* evidence of AGW.



    Climate scientists, who are not "leaders" of any movement seem to think there is evidence.

    Are they all lying?
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #2672
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Janet Curry who he knows damn well about because he crows about her every chance he gets.
    I was actually going to use that name, but wanted to do a little reading.

    Janet Curry.

    Who also had many of her criticisms answered by BEST's study, if memory serves.
    RandomGuy is offline

  23. #2673
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    The leading figures in AGCC are all compromised. Al Gore is just the biggest fish.

    Name a major proponent of AGCC that isn't compromised by an association with Al Gore, East Anglia University, and or the IPCC; all of whom have lost all credibility with reasonable people.
    pigeonhole pigeonhole pigeonhole.

    Fine lets discount everything Al Gore and AGCC and in fairness discount all the from the Guardian, Heritage Foundation, WIWT, and all the other obvious financial interests and just leave the regular scientists.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  24. #2674
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It does, doesn't it. Or, as that one scientist put it, a lot of blind obedience to a popular narrative because of the attendant ridicule visited on anyone that dare go against the narrative.

    The polar bear scientist as my example.
    Have to go back and re-read that.

    If I remember correctly it ended up being a case of a denier administrator bashing actual science, but that is simply what I remember.

    It still isn't an answer to the question:

    If there is NO evidence, then ALL climate scientists who claim AGW are lying.

    Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.
    Are they all lying?

    If you want to claim there is NO evidence, you have a HUGE burden of proof, given the number of scientists who stake their reputations on the evidence that they feel does support AGW.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-16-2012 at 06:04 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #2675
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Janet Curry who he knows damn well about because he crows about her every chance he gets.
    Judith Curry. And she's not a skeptic. She just doesn't dismiss skeptical scientists as "deniers".
    DarrinS is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •