Results 31 to 40 of 63
Thread: Well, that's a conflict of interest
-
02-26-15, 06:41 PM #31
Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
Goodness me.
First, name calling is silly, I'm not conservative.
Second, I'm not conservative in anyway shape or form. I'm actually a card toting member of the Green Party.
Third, I'm glad you can use the Internet for something other than porn.
Fourth, this is the ONLY link you've provided thus far so shut your hole.
-
02-26-15, 06:49 PM #32
Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
They neglected to explain why this is a TREND. Meaning it's happened year after year. If greenhouse gases were truly exponentially driving up the global temperature it would be essentially impossible for ice levels to trend up over a period of years.
They also titles this section "Antarctic sea ice declines rapidly, still high" which is a no brainer because it declines rapidly this time of year every year. It's the peak of summer down there right now so of course the ice is going to melt at a high rate like it does this time of year every year and the same thing will happen again next year. The entire thing is slanted towards upholding the idea of anthropogenic induced warming despite the data's contradiction.
-
02-26-15, 07:00 PM #33
Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
-
02-27-15, 10:56 AM #34
Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
Well done. That's one way it plays out.
Bigger picture: the people I hear making the biggest noise are also the ones with the most conflicted interests. That's not scientists, or even scientists who get huge money from the petroleum industry. It's people who need to get votes, and people who need to get ratings, and people who need to show a bump in quarterly or year-over-year profits. All of those motivations have very short time horizons, rely heavily on belief and fashion (at the expense of facts or science), and have no accountability to the future.
I want people who wield power to also have accountability. I want them to prove their position by marking their beliefs to market. It's not that they're engaged in (as you well put it) folly. It may or may not be folly (and we all have our own positions on that). It's that they're making a lot of noise, and wielding a lot of power, with no particular downside. The point of the monument isn't to embarrass, the point is that if what they say is right then they win! ... and if what they say is wrong, they lose.
Put the fuck up, or shut the fuck up.
Æ
-
- Join Date
- 11-13-07
- Location
- Plano, TX and Ruston, LA
- Posts
- 32,364
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 43
-
02-27-15, 12:10 PM #36
Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
The first problem you're gonna have is going back to the 60's and finding scientists talking about climate change because at that time it was global cooling. Then when that failed it became global warming and when that failed they went with climate change. That way they're right regardless of which way it goes.
-
-
- Join Date
- 11-27-06
- Location
- Denver
- Posts
- 11,452
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 13
02-27-15, 12:56 PM #38Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
Wait, the burden is on me to prove you wrong? LOL, kids these days..... You brought this as some sort of point proving evidence, can you show
meno, the scientists that this has anything to do with anything other than yearly conditions as stated by the websites purpose?
The burden is on me, because you have arbitrarily pulled some fact from some website, about yearly ice levels in antarctica, and you try and say it somehow proves climate change is a bunch of hooey.
This is not what this topic is about, but good strawman, or herring or troll. I applaud.
Also, I said your talk show radio producer was conservative, not you. but read what you want I guess.Last edited by SmokenScion; 02-27-15 at 01:01 PM. Reason: typoes
-
-
- Join Date
- 11-27-06
- Location
- Denver
- Posts
- 11,452
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 13
02-27-15, 03:15 PM #40Re: Well, that's a conflict of interest
Sure.....whatever, bro.
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/downloa...831&download=1
Maybe you can Verify The facts in this report, I cannot, because ALL the links are broken.
"don't bother to reply" was directed at you, not Grayman, Therefor it has no bearance on me or his proof.
The next qualifier I set was directed towards the relativity of what the Antarctic ice levels in that area has to do with climate change.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks