16 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeNo one from the 'sceptical science' side has responded - like utherpendragon or normbenign - to whom I am addressing the question. utherpendragon seems to be arguing that the fact that he refuses to respond to it is somehow proof that he has made some kind of point. Kind of funny really.
Well, actually, shavixmir just did...
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeActually it's quite interesting to note that, despite CliffLandin, kmax87, shavixmir and maybe one or two others providing quite detailed responses to the question (and not just on this thread), utherpendragon describes this as "no one is responding". It makes one wonder if utherpendragon knows much about this topic or is open minded about it at all.
Well, actually, shavixmir just did...
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothWhen are you bringing back the bucket of trout FMF ? Oh, and thank you for dropping the dude stuff after every sentence as when you firsts started this childish charade.
Actually it's quite interesting to note that, despite CliffLandin, kmax87, shavixmir and maybe one or two others providing quite detailed responses to the question (and not just on this thread), utherpendragon describes this as "no one is responding". It makes one wonder if utherpendragon knows much about this topic or is open minded about it at all.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothI have. When you actually follow the original statement I made of follow the damm money and actually look into it,comment on it then I will debate what you brought up. This is typical of you. You dont respond to the question at hand. you deflect w/strawman arguments. you have been doing this for years.
Still no answer from a poster who's contributed little more than a three word bumper sticker to this debate. Are we to take it utherpendragon is conceding he hasn't taken a look to see what happens when he "follows the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonHow on Earth can asking you to "follow the money" in the case of the scientists you favour be a "strawman argument" and yet NOT be a "strawman argument" when you use it to discredit virtually all scientists everywhere?
you deflect w/strawman arguments.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonLets assume that Booth is fully aware that there's a significant amount of money being bet on the side of those who are "climate change believers".
I have. When you actually follow the original statement I made of follow the damm money and actually look into it,comment on it then I will debate what you brought up. This is typical of you. You dont respond to the question at hand. you deflect w/strawman arguments. you have been doing this for years.
Why then do you ignore Booth's point that there's also a significant amount of money being bet on the side of those who are "climate change skeptics"?
The real question is how do we go about finding the truth about climate change (or any other scientific question)? In your opinion, which particular scientists do you believe are the least sullied by money and are therefore most free to offer a truly objective analysis?
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothIt really does not matter.
As a previous poster commented or asked: what happens when you "follow the money" on the Climate Sceptics side?
If the initial claim can be shown as bogus and is a multi trillion dollar scam to make a few elites even richer and to redistribute wealth world wide from wealthy nations (the U.S.) to poor nations and bring us down in the process.Thats what its all about.
But to answer your question,The critics of the skeptics such as source watch the guardian huffington post, media matters,etc, etc claim Exxon and fox news back them.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by CliffLandinNot really sure where you're coming from now. Some posts you make are in support of global warming, then you have others like the one on the first page of this thread where you're intoning the opposite.
I have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate chang ...[text shortened]... sn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.
Thoughts?
Do you really think your personal memory of localized weather conditions in Florida ought to be submitted as evidence--- one way or another--- or were you merely being anecdotal?
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by normbenignTim Mcveigh and Terry(!) Nichols didn't blow up the Murrah building?
On whether people will change their minds, they obviously are reluctant to do so. Most people posting on such forums have fairly strong beliefs based on what they think are facts.
I have changed from time to time, but not frivolously.
Examples:
For several months I believed that Tim McViegh and James Nichols planned and executed the Murrah bui ...[text shortened]... Gore was preaching at the time Jesse was governor. He changed his mind after his investigation.
Then who did?
9/11 was an inside job?
Wait, lemme guess.
No human has ever landed on the Moon and the CIA and the military-industrial complex, along with a little help from Fidel Castro and the mafia, assassinated JFK, oh, and RFK, oh, and Martin Luther King and maybe even John Lennon, just to be on the safe side.
Am I close?
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76You got it all wrong man. John Lennon hired Martin Luther King to assassinate JFK. And lastly, Fidel Castro is an alien who came from the moon and is here to promote Marxism to the populace in order to take control over the populace.
Tim Mcveigh and Terry(!) Nichols didn't blow up the Murrah building?
Then who did?
9/11 was an inside job?
Wait, lemme guess.
No human has ever landed on the Moon and the CIA and the military-industrial complex, along with a little help from Fidel Castro and the mafia, assassinated JFK, oh, and RFK, oh, and Martin Luther King and maybe even John Lennon, just to be on the safe side.
Am I close?
Get your facts straight!! ðŸ˜
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Surely you don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, nor do you place your wholesale trust in the official report.
Tim Mcveigh and Terry(!) Nichols didn't blow up the Murrah building?
Then who did?
9/11 was an inside job?
Wait, lemme guess.
No human has ever landed on the Moon and the CIA and the military-industrial complex, along with a little help from Fidel Castro and the mafia, assassinated JFK, oh, and RFK, oh, and Martin Luther King and maybe even John Lennon, just to be on the safe side.
Am I close?
Ever hear of Barry Seal? Things aren't always what they are made to appear.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't believe everything in every official report, but I don't assume nutty conspiracies either.
Surely you don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, nor do you place your wholesale trust in the official report.
Ever hear of Barry Seal? Things aren't always what they are made to appear.
Tim Mcveigh admitted his guilt many times and, in any case, the evidence against him was overwhelming.
The Moon hoax theories are truly loony.
To allege that President Bush conspired with the terrorists to cause 9/11 is even more loony.
After reading "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner, I've lost all appetite for JFK conspiracy theories.
That not every official tells the truth about everything does not mean that the simple, most obvious theory is never correct.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThat doesn't answer my question at all. I am asking you who you think payrolls the scientists that the "climate change skeptics" favour and cite?
But to answer your question,The critics of the skeptics such as source watch the guardian huffington post, media matters,etc, etc claim Exxon and fox news back them.