27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI want to believe this. What, though, is responsible for rising sea levels if not global warming? Or are the seas not really rising? A climatologist quoted in this article says they are not:
The 'hockey stick' picture of dramatic temperature rise in the past 100 years following 1,700 years of relatively constant temperature has now been proven false. I just thought all of you global warming alarmists would want to know.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5C%5CCulture%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200512%5C%5CCUL20051207a.html
27 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeAttacking the nature of the source is what an ad hominem is all about.
No, it shows that the source of the article isn't impartial.
They even link to the study of the National Academy of Sciences, which says that the most recent studies conclude that man does have an impact.
So ritter, explain how you give credit to the part that descredits the hockey stick graph and not to the part where they point to the evidence of man's influence in the global temperatures?
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaNot at all.
Attacking the nature of the source is what an ad hominem is all about.
Ad Hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason
Its quite logical to dismiss "The scientific reasons why negroes should be slaves", if the article is written by the KKK. Nothing personal in that at all.
D
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou are a fool.
The 'hockey stick' picture of dramatic temperature rise in the past 100 years following 1,700 years of relatively constant temperature has now been proven false. I just thought all of you global warming alarmists would want to know.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734
The author:
http://www.desmogblog.com/national-centre-for-policy-analysis-dont-fight-climate-change-build-big-sewalls-instead
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/staff/sburnett.html
Who he works for:
National Center for Policy Analysis
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
If you want to stop being so ignorant about the climate debate, and would like to learn something about the actual science behind it, take a look at this article, for example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's most likely due to the media reporting half-truths chinese-whisper style regarding the UN comments. Do you have a link to the Reuters story and the UN report? The link on your link is broken.
I want to believe this. What, though, is responsible for rising sea levels if not global warming? Or are the seas not really rising? A climatologist quoted in this article says they are not:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5C%5CCulture%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200512%5C%5CCUL20051207a.html
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI suppose you would feel better if the report were issued from the desk of the Commissar for the People's Commission on Atmospheric Studies? I guess you didn't get the memo, so I'll summarize it for you: Capitalism and entrepreneurship are not dirty words.
From the home page:
"Welcome to the Web site of The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization devoted to discovering and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems".
Enough said.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'd rather read a report from somewhere impartial.
I suppose you would feel better if the report were issued from the desk of the Commissar for the People's Commission on Atmospheric Studies? I guess you didn't get the memo, so I'll summarize it for you: Capitalism and entrepreneurship are not dirty words.
The words 'free market solution' should sound alarm bells to anyone genuinely interested in what we're doing to the planet.
A 'free market solution' is no solution at all.
It is a recipe for continuing capitalist wrecking of the planet. But I guess you didn't get that memo.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeOnce again you're engaging in name calling and ignoring the facts. The "hockey stick" is broken, not because H. Sterling Burnett or the NCPA says so, the facts do. In fact, I’ll do you one better -- the first person to prove the fallacy of the hockey stick was an amateur mathematician from Toronto who researched the math behind the model just for the fun of it. He wasn’t on anyone’s payroll and his research was done on spec, so you can’t claim that he brought a bias or dirty Big Oil money to his research.
You are a fool.
[b]The author:
http://www.desmogblog.com/national-centre-for-policy-analysis-dont-fight-climate-change-build-big-sewalls-instead
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/staff/sburnett.html
Who he works for:
National Center for Policy Analysis
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
If you want to stop being so ig ...[text shortened]... hind it, take a look at this article, for example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121[/b]
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeCapitalism works -- communism/socialism do not. Since 1900, more people have been freed from toil and poverty by capitalism than any other ideology. We have greater incomes, greater consumer choice, longer life spans and more leisure time than at any time in the history of man because of entrepreneurs and capitalists, yet you still cling to an outdated ideology that has failed miserably and with catastrophic results everywhere it has been applied. Why do you think people immigrate to the United States and not Cuba, North Korea or other communist hellholes? Why Redmike, why?
I'd rather read a report from somewhere impartial.
The words 'free market solution' should sound alarm bells to anyone genuinely interested in what we're doing to the planet.
A 'free market solution' is no solution at all.
It is a recipe for continuing capitalist wrecking of the planet. But I guess you didn't get that memo.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIn a thread about the destruction of the planet by greedy corporations, you can claim that capitalism works?
Capitalism works -- communism/socialism do not. Since 1900, more people have been freed from toil and poverty by capitalism than any other ideology. We have greater incomes, greater consumer choice, longer life spans and more leisure time than at any time in the history of man because of entrepreneurs and capitalists, yet you still cling to an ou ...[text shortened]... e to the United States and not Cuba, North Korea or other communist hellholes? Why Redmike, why?
It clearly doesn't. Capitalism is wrecking the planet. Capitalism isn't capable of any sort of restraint - it is the nature of the beast that it will consume whatever resources there are.
And, for the millionth time, neither Cuba nor North Korea are communist countries - indeed, this is a contradiction in terms.
27 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWrong again - that's the first time I've engaged in name-calling with you, following your precedent of calling me 'helpless' for simply asking you if you could clarify one of your statements on the other climate change thread. In any case, I'm not trying to insult you for some random reason, I really meant it - you actually are a fool if you want to stand by that reference of yours and others that you have thrown into the debate.
Once again you're engaging in name calling and ignoring the facts. The "hockey stick" is broken, not because H. Sterling Burnett or the NCPA says so, the facts do. In fact, I’ll do you one better -- the first person to prove the fallacy of the hockey stick was an amateur mathematician from Toronto who researched the math behind the model just for ...[text shortened]... ne on spec, so you can’t claim that he brought a bias or dirty Big Oil money to his research.
Did you read that reference I posted above? It shows that the global warming observation is statistically significant. What do you think of this?
Please post a reference to your mathematician's work on the subject.
Edit: please don't post another message saying simply 'the facts back this up' without posting a decent reference, as I've mentioned to you before.