Eaarth

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Some of my science sources:

sciencefriday.com - making science user-friendly

PhysOrg.com - Science News, Technology, Physics, Nanotechnology, Space Science, Earth Science, Medicine

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/

Robert Krulwich : NPR

Energy Channel - Technology Review

NOVA | PBS

Nature | PBS

UCS | Union of Concerned Scientists

Science : NPR

Keep churning it out, Neil. Every time you present your idea of what a scientific source is, it becomes more and more obvious that all of your "sources" have a political bent or agenda associated with them.

Out of curiosity, I checked the link for the "Union of Concerned Scientists". It is readily apparent from their website that this is an activist group seeking to recruit wanna-be activists and donors. With no surprise, it is based right near your locale, in Cambridge, in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts (one of the most Liberal communities in one of the most Liberal states in America).

Does the name of the organization imply that scientists who are not members are unconcerned? Of course it does. Would scientists who are skeptical or do not agree be welcome in its ranks? Of course not. Isn't it blatantly obvious that this is a political organization, not a scientific one? Now try to pass this off as an unbiased group. Who here do you think will believe you other than those who your fellow activists?

And the rest of your sources are usually from NPR (National Propaganda Radio) or PBS, both of which are very Left-leaning, politically.

I suggest that everyone read this link: Union of Concerned Scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accurately stated, this organization is nothing but a collective of propagandists who call themselves scientists.

The problem Neil, is that you think that the average person is incapable of distinguishing between an organization that has an admitted agenda of advancing a political policy (that is notably Leftist) and one of scientific inquiry. I think anyone can see it for what it is, one it is exposed.

Now "science" has become the handmaiden of the political Left.

Just don't call it "science". Let's call it what it is: PROPAGANDA masquerading as science and used as a rationalization to support a political agenda.

[t vago]

So... What do you think Neil will post now?

a). An emotional appeal?
b). An appeal to authority?
c). Some fact-free post that ignores our points?
d). Some post labeling or implying skeptics are "deniers"?
e). Some like to a biased website that supposedly "proves" AGW?
f). All of the above?

[Arragonis]

In order to link CO2 with temp you need a link, perhaps a relationship between them.



Oops.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by t vago

So... What do you think Neil will post now?

a). An emotional appeal?
b). An appeal to authority?
c). Some fact-free post that ignores our points?
d). Some post labeling or implying skeptics are "deniers"?
e). Some like to a biased website that supposedly "proves" AGW?
f). All of the above?

Choice f) would be like playing all the numbers on a roulette wheel. That's akin to cheating, but I suppose it's an option. Probably the 'guilt trip' would be a subset of choice a). Don't forget the old reliable 'scare tactic', AKA "the sky is falling!".

We'll have to wait for him to spin the wheel of GlobalCoolingGlobalWarmingClimateChange.

"Ladies & gentlemen, place your bets."

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Choice f) would be like playing all the numbers on a roulette wheel. That's akin to cheating, but I suppose it's an option. Probably the 'guilt trip' would be a subset of choice a). Don't forget the old reliable 'scare tactic', AKA "the sky is falling!".

We'll have to wait for him to spin the wheel of GlobalCoolingGlobalWarmingClimateChange.

"Ladies & gentlemen, place your bets."

Apart from Neil ignoring the arguments posted against AGW some of the time (and we have posted 30-odd pages so maybe he's allowed), I think he does post facts most of the time, so that one is a little unfair IMHO.

EDIT- What I tap 'facts' I mean 'facts from his standpoint'. But it means the same thing.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Apart from Neil ignoring the arguments posted against AGW some of the time (and we have posted 30-odd pages so maybe he's allowed), I think he does post facts most of the time, so that one is a little unfair IMHO.

EDIT- What I tap 'facts' I mean 'facts from his standpoint'. But it means the same thing.

No, facts are objective and opinions are subjective.

So "facts from his standpoint" are an accurate description of what an opinion IS.

It really has reached the point where we can't tell the difference any more.

Isn't that the goal of politics?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

No, facts are objective and opinions are subjective.

So "facts from his standpoint" are an accurate description of what an opinion IS.

It really has reached the point where we can't tell the difference any more.

Isn't that the goal of politics?

I have always subscribed to the "opinion" that politics is "the art of the possible" as opposed to merging opinion and fact.

But then again that leads to a debate on what is possible...

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Apart from Neil ignoring the arguments posted against AGW some of the time (and we have posted 30-odd pages so maybe he's allowed), I think he does post facts most of the time, so that one is a little unfair IMHO.

EDIT- What I tap 'facts' I mean 'facts from his standpoint'. But it means the same thing.

Taken at face value, he does post a few facts to back up his point of view. However, these facts are so interwoven with subjective conclusions on what the facts mean, that for most of the time, it's impossible to really tell where facts end and opinion begins. For instance, it's a fact that the ice shelves in Antarctica are calving ice, and it's a fact that their overall area was shrinking for the time period used by AGW true believers. However, the conclusion came to by AGW zealots is erroneous in light of the fact that the total mass of ice in Antarctica was actually increasing at the same time. Shrinking ice sheets makes for great news bites. Increasing total ice mass at the same time? Not so much.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I have always subscribed to the "opinion" that politics is "the art of the possible" as opposed to merging opinion and fact.

But then again that leads to a debate on what is possible...

That's a quote from Otto von Bismarck. Authoritarianism is not my cup of tea.

I prefer this version: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

[bestclimb]

The real question for AGW argument is if the world is going to end because of it. Earth was around before us and survived, relatively intact, a great deal of traumatic events. The mass emission of Carbon may just as likely turn out to be not that traumatic. Until proof comes about otherwise I would prefer that the politicians and activists keep their hands out of my wallet, and quit screaming were all gonna die.