I can, but I will simply ask that you watch the program again with that in mind.
Actually, how about I point out the fact that at about the 20:38 mark, talking to Singer, when he starts to respond, they go to Andrew dessler who then in speaks only to discredit Singer. Now this clip with Singer starts at the 19:20 mark if you are interested.
JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] It’s a time-honored tactic by the skeptics, authentic-looking do ents and reports that don’t stand up to independent scrutiny. Singer also signed the Oregon pe ion, and this is not his first time going up against accepted science.
[on camera] Was the science around chlorofluorocarbons hyped, the science around secondhand smoke hyped, the science around the ozone layer hyped, going back 10, 15, 20 years?
FRED SINGER: I’m happy to discuss all of these since I’ve been deeply involved in all these topics that you mention. Let me start with secondhand smoke—
ANDREW DESSLER: Fred Singer is, I think, a professional contrarian. When I was in graduate school, I worked on stratospheric ozone depletion. And Fred would call me when I was in grad school and talk to me about how he didn’t think humans were depleting ozone.
And before that, he had real questions about whether humans were causing acid rain. And he didn’t think that nuclear winter was sound science. And he really criticized the work that connected secondhand smoke to health impacts. And now he doesn’t think global warming is an issue.
They were commenting on the paper that the NAS censured Singer for. He was. His tactics are suspect don't you think? That was what the piece was about. Their tactics not the science.
I am waiting for the part where they discounted them all scientifically out of hand. Quoting Heartland was cute though. Why don't you quote Exxon next?
That's right Fuzzy Troll.
Keep digging. When will you realize you lost?
So now you are resorting to this tactic?
I'll give you a hint as someone that has judged CX debates hundreds of times: posturing about how you have won rather than closing on the merits of your argument is indicative of loss.
OK, what did I lose over?
As a participant I do not judge the debate. I am not objective, dimwit. That's the point.
You... Objective...
A participant is by virtue not objective. I don't see what is so funny about that. What is not escaping my notice is that you have decided to stop trying to argue the merits of your position. That too is telling.
You have to remember, long ago, I realized you are a joke, and not to be taken serious.
Now I have been drinking tonight, and checking the forum every so often, but have better things to do. That said, I will admit to misreading your "I am not objective" as "I am objective." Hope that clears a little bit up at least.
I don't need to argue the merits of my position any better. If you don't understand what I have said, that's your bad. Not mine.
----edit add... 36 minutes later---
What is amazing, it that drunk on my ass, I can still run circles around you.
Racing GT5 on my PS3 is more challenging than you.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-27-2012 at 03:22 AM.
Is there here anyone other than you, WC, that thinks you run circles around anyone?
• “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” —Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
• “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” —Dr. David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
• “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” —Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
• “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” —Sir John Houghton, First Chairman of the IPCC
• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
transcripts!
Nice context, dip .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
