Even 6th graders are smarter than the lib scientists

[Stoner]

Pretty funny!

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

[Elrathin]

And yet we still have not seen you refute not ONE of PMs articles on Global Warming. If it's soo easy why don't you do it Stoner? Oh yeah, you can't.

[Stoner]

Oh yeah, you can't.


Can't what? Debate something that is a conspiracy theory? It's your conspiracy theory...you prove it.

[Elrathin]

Can't what? Debate something that is a conspiracy theory? It's your conspiracy theory...you prove it.


It's layed out in the articles that you refuse to refute because you can't. That is why your arguments against GW are so pathetic, because you haven't refuted ANYONE.

You're GW rants are hilarious though. You ranting about GW being false is like the 3 year old refusing to believe the sun sets in the west and rises in the East. Thanks for the laughs.

[Alonzo]

I remember the time stoner begged me to watch and critique an anti global warming piece and then disappeared once I did. It's not worth bothering anymore.

Though I will say that this guy is a good candidate for liberty university. He teaches 6th grade paleontology (meaning he'd most likely have one of the strongest science backgrounds in any of the science departments), and he doesn't believe in evolution.

[bobbylien]

Back up your other threads before posting a new one. This is a debate forum and you don't ever debate. You just post a new thread as an excuse to ignore your old ones that someone actually bothered to refute.

[wonder cow]

Yes. Some random 6th grade class somewhere conducting a discussion convinces me.

Let’s vote for Republicans next time.

[Oedipus Rex]

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=50


"The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."

This freely expressed vote against the warming scare propaganda should be contrasted with the claimed "consensus of 2500 climate scientists" about global warming. This facile and oft-quoted assertion by the White House is a complete fabrication. The contributors and reviewers of the 1996 report by the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually number less than 2000, and only a small fraction -- who were never polled -- can claim to be climate scientists. Many of those are known to be critical of the IPCC report and have now become signers of the Petition.

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda," said Dr. Seitz.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, explained:

"Scientists are understandably upset when they see $2 billion per year devoted to research on climate change, much it irrelevant and concerned only with imaginary consequences of a hypothetical warming -- while other fields of science are starved. They are also appalled and angry that an increasing fraction of this research money is diverted into "community workshops," thinly disguised brainwashing exercises to create public fears about climate catastrophes."

[piratemonkey]

Just for the record:

And yet we still have not seen you refute not ONE of PMs articles on Global Warming. If it's soo easy why don't you do it Stoner? Oh yeah, you can't.


Can't what? Debate something that is a conspiracy theory? It's your conspiracy theory...you prove it.

Stoner just stated that thousands of scientists, hundreds of scientific journal editors and the the thousands of scientific journal articles published in those journals are all part of a grand conspiracy theory. *scary music*

This is the level of argument coming from the anti-GW crowd.

[piratemonkey]

Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, explained:

"Scientists are understandably upset when they see $2 billion per year devoted to research on climate change, much it irrelevant and concerned only with imaginary consequences of a hypothetical warming -- while other fields of science are starved. They are also appalled and angry that an increasing fraction of this research money is diverted into "community workshops," thinly disguised brainwashing exercises to create public fears about climate catastrophes."


I love it. Another editorial. No proof.

So you're claiming it's the profit motive that keeps thousands of scientists lying, all part of this global conspiracy?

Well, let's check your source's profit motive:

S. Fred Singer
Affiliations:
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

Oops.

In addition, He's a liar.
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry. "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

[Oedipus Rex]

Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, explained:

"Scientists are understandably upset when they see $2 billion per year devoted to research on climate change, much it irrelevant and concerned only with imaginary consequences of a hypothetical warming -- while other fields of science are starved. They are also appalled and angry that an increasing fraction of this research money is diverted into "community workshops," thinly disguised brainwashing exercises to create public fears about climate catastrophes."


I love it. Another editorial. No proof.

So you're claiming it's the profit motive that keeps thousands of scientists lying, all part of this global conspiracy?

Well, let's check your source's profit motive:

S. Fred Singer
Affiliations:
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

Oops.

In addition, He's a liar.
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry. "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer


That's the best you can do??? OMG!!!!! Exxon! Big oil!!!!! You dismiss the person because of the funding. So, I dismiss your 'scientific' folks because they are funding whores to government subsidies. They'll lie, cheat, and pimp their own mothers in the name of obtaining grants.

Name scientists that'll back up your ASSertions that haven't gotten any public dollars for their 'research'. Go ahead, I'm waiting and I have all GD day.

[bobbylien]

Alright, even if there aren't any scientists who agree with global warming and who don't receive government money(highly doubt it.. even the former republican speaker of the house has been quoted as saying.."the debate is over.") you must then prove that there is some kind of vast conspiracy within the government to prove the existance of global warming.

[piratemonkey]

That's the best you can do??? OMG!!!!! Exxon! Big oil!!!!! You dismiss the person because of the funding. So, I dismiss your 'scientific' folks because they are funding whores to government subsidies. They'll lie, cheat, and pimp their own mothers in the name of obtaining grants.

Name scientists that'll back up your ASSertions that haven't gotten any public dollars for their 'research'. Go ahead, I'm waiting and I have all GD day.


Ummm.... two comments.

1) Your source was criticizing scientists for conflict of interests due to funding concerns. Accusing your source of the same is entirely fair game... the only difference being that I supplied proof whereas your source does not.

2) Explain to me a) how public funding corrupts scientific results more than corporate funding and b) how any science can be done in this country without public funding.

Anyone accusing scientists of more bias because they receive public funding instead of corporate funding fundamentally misunderstands how science is done.

[Oedipus Rex]

Alright, even if there aren't any scientists who agree with global warming and who don't receive government money(highly doubt it.. even the former republican speaker of the house has been quoted as saying.."the debate is over.") you must then prove that there is some kind of vast conspiracy within the government to prove the existance of global warming.





Huh??? You quote one Pub and I'm suppose to say 'Oops! Sorry, that settles the debate for all time!'? I don't believe that and I won't let anyone speak for me, let alone a politician. You should know better than that. Try again.

[Oedipus Rex]

That's the best you can do??? OMG!!!!! Exxon! Big oil!!!!! You dismiss the person because of the funding. So, I dismiss your 'scientific' folks because they are funding whores to government subsidies. They'll lie, cheat, and pimp their own mothers in the name of obtaining grants.

Name scientists that'll back up your ASSertions that haven't gotten any public dollars for their 'research'. Go ahead, I'm waiting and I have all GD day.


Ummm.... two comments.

1) Your source was criticizing scientists for conflict of interests due to funding concerns. Accusing your source of the same is entirely fair game... the only difference being that I supplied proof whereas your source does not.

2) Explain to me a) how public funding corrupts scientific results more than corporate funding and b) how any science can be done in this country without public funding.

Anyone accusing scientists of more bias because they receive public funding instead of corporate funding fundamentally misunderstands how science is done.



1. Proof? That's always open for debate.

2. a) Let's turn that around. Explain how corporate funding corrupts scientific results more than welfare, er, socialist government funding? b) hmmm... corporate funding??? :)


"Anyone accusing scientists of more bias because they receive public funding instead of corporate funding fundamentally misunderstands how science is done."

You're a joke. I misunderstand 'how science is done' yet the 'global warming' cult will use the phrase 'scientific consensus'. Tell me again 'how science is done'.

[Alonzo]

If they're studying the effects of cigarrette smoke, the government is unlikely to pull funding if the results show it's harmful. The corporate backers will, and have done so.

[piratemonkey]

You're a joke.


Your juvenile personal insults undercut your argument and say much more about the supposed substance of your position than any retort on my part could.

[Oedipus Rex]

You're a joke.


Your juvenile personal insults undercut your argument and say much more about the supposed substance of your position than any retort on my part could.


I'll try to remember that while I'm looking at your avatar. :rolleyes:

[piratemonkey]

You're a joke.


Your juvenile personal insults undercut your argument and say much more about the supposed substance of your position than any retort on my part could.


I'll try to remember that while I'm looking at your avatar. :rolleyes:


If you take my avatar as a 'personal insult,' again, that says a lot more about you than me. :D

(For a substantive response to your very simple question, please see Zo's response above.)

[Oedipus Rex]

You're a joke.


Your juvenile personal insults undercut your argument and say much more about the supposed substance of your position than any retort on my part could.


I'll try to remember that while I'm looking at your avatar. :rolleyes:


1. If you take my avatar as a 'personal insult,' again, that says a lot more about you than me. :D

2. (For a substantive response to your very simple question, please see Zo's response above.)


1. I don't consider it a personal insult towards me. I consider it very juvenile and a direct reflection on your lack of character.

2. Fight your own battles. Don't look to others to fight them for you.

[piratemonkey]

1. I don't consider it a personal insult towards me. I consider it very juvenile and a direct reflection on your lack of character.

Again with the personal attacks.

You do know that that's against the rules here and most here who read things like this won't think it helps your position, right?

There's a big difference between attacking someone's position and attacking thier character. For some reason, you seem to think it's appropriate to do the latter.

Most would disagree.


2. Fight your own battles. Don't look to others to fight them for you.


"If they're studying the effects of cigarrette smoke, the government is unlikely to pull funding if the results show it's harmful. The corporate backers will, and have done so." *

* Credit to Zo for making the point perfectly.

Government funding isn't predicated on the results. Corporate funding very often is.

[Oedipus Rex]

1. I don't consider it a personal insult towards me. I consider it very juvenile and a direct reflection on your lack of character.

Again with the personal attacks.

You do know that that's against the rules here and most here who read things like this won't think it helps your position, right?

There's a big difference between attacking someone's position and attacking thier character. For some reason, you seem to think it's appropriate to do the latter.

Most would disagree.


2. Fight your own battles. Don't look to others to fight them for you.


"If they're studying the effects of cigarrette smoke, the government is unlikely to pull funding if the results show it's harmful. The corporate backers will, and have done so." *

* Credit to Zo for making the point perfectly.

Government funding isn't predicated on the results. Corporate funding very often is.




Using the 'rules' to put yourself into the 'victim position' just serves to prove my point about you. Thanks.

[piratemonkey]

Using the 'rules' to put yourself into the 'victim position' just serves to prove my point about you. Thanks.



Hee hee.

All those pesky "rules!" I see a similarity to Bush Administration positions in your argument.

Hows about focusing on the content of this debate now that you've shown everyone that you think personal attacks are fair game.


Focus, now:
Government funding isn't predicated on the results. Corporate funding very often is.

[Oedipus Rex]

Using the 'rules' to put yourself into the 'victim position' just serves to prove my point about you. Thanks.



Hee hee.

All those pesky "rules!" I see a similarity to Bush Administration positions in your argument.

Hows about focusing on the content of this debate now that you've shown everyone that you think personal attacks are fair game.


Focus, now:
Government funding isn't predicated on the results. Corporate funding very often is.


Ok, whatever. You seem content with crying and I just don't have the time or inclination to babysit you... I'll leave you to your own devices now. When you grow up and want to converse with adults, drop me a post. Bye.

[Elrathin]

And another conservative with lame responses gets busted in the chops by PM.

Good show PM, it seems everyone here that is against the current leading Global Warming argument is unable to refute any of your sources.

[BoogyMan]

That's the best you can do??? OMG!!!!! Exxon! Big oil!!!!! You dismiss the person because of the funding. So, I dismiss your 'scientific' folks because they are funding whores to government subsidies. They'll lie, cheat, and pimp their own mothers in the name of obtaining grants.

Name scientists that'll back up your ASSertions that haven't gotten any public dollars for their 'research'. Go ahead, I'm waiting and I have all GD day.


Ummm.... two comments.

1) Your source was criticizing scientists for conflict of interests due to funding concerns. Accusing your source of the same is entirely fair game... the only difference being that I supplied proof whereas your source does not.

2) Explain to me a) how public funding corrupts scientific results more than corporate funding and b) how any science can be done in this country without public funding.

Anyone accusing scientists of more bias because they receive public funding instead of corporate funding fundamentally misunderstands how science is done.



1. Proof? That's always open for debate.

2. a) Let's turn that around. Explain how corporate funding corrupts scientific results more than welfare, er, socialist government funding? b) hmmm... corporate funding??? :)


"Anyone accusing scientists of more bias because they receive public funding instead of corporate funding fundamentally misunderstands how science is done."

You're a joke. I misunderstand 'how science is done' yet the 'global warming' cult will use the phrase 'scientific consensus'. Tell me again 'how science is done'.


Oedipus, comments like the highlighted one above certainly don't work towards us getting any kind of consensus. Go after pirate's postings and you guys can have a valid and functional debate, go after him personally and you lose every time.

I am your side of the isle Oedipus, but I cannot support this type of tactic.

[Oedipus Rex]

You may want to renew your lipstick. Monkey's butt is covered in red.

[Alonzo]

You may want to renew your lipstick. Monkey's butt is covered in red.


And here we have another winning response.

[BoogyMan]

You may want to renew your lipstick. Monkey's butt is covered in red.


Wow, a call for civil debate garners me this? Disappointing.

[piratemonkey]

*sigh*

Seriously, though. Here's the difference. It's a big one.

Public Funding: The government has an issue it needs to make decisions about. It needs data to make those decisions. It pays scientists to gather that data and uses it to make decisions.

Corporate Funding: The Corporation has a product it needs to sell at a profit. It needs data to determine safety, efficacy, etc. It pays scientists to gather data and uses it (hopefully) to demonstrate the above.

The difference is the bottom line. If the Corporation gets back data it doesn't like, it loses money, sometimes a whole lot of money. The next time that Corporation needs data, are they likely to use those same scientists, or choose ones that are predisposed to lean the way they want?

Corporate research can be good, but readers of it have to on guard because of this inherent bias.

[Labrocca]

It goes to show that people with an open mind can place politics aside and even a young mind can understand common sense.[hr]
*sigh*

Seriously, though. Here's the difference. It's a big one.

Public Funding: The government has an issue it needs to make decisions about. It needs data to make those decisions. It pays scientists to gather that data and uses it to make decisions.

Corporate Funding: The Corporation has a product it needs to sell at a profit. It needs data to determine safety, efficacy, etc. It pays scientists to gather data and uses it (hopefully) to demonstrate the above.

The difference is the bottom line. If the Corporation gets back data it doesn't like, it loses money, sometimes a whole lot of money. The next time that Corporation needs data, are they likely to use those same scientists, or choose ones that are predisposed to lean the way they want?


You do realize then that this "concensus" of scientists earn huge amounts of money from their "findings".

You also have to ask a real simple question...what do corporations have to lose by Global Warming being true? NOTHING. Has oil stopped being used? Nope. It's actually become MORE expensive. There is often discussion about energy and that until it's very expensive we won't have alternate fuel sources. Now WHO do you think will own and run these alternate fuel sources? The same damn companies that provide you oil now. Your entire basis that Corporations are funding the anti-global warming debate is laughable. They have NOTHING to lose in either case. As a matter of fact they might make MORE profit from installing new fuel alternatives.

Now you really gotta ask about these scientists that are making BILLIONS...YES BILLIONS...researching global warming with no PROOF..only a "concensus" .....HOGWASH. The people that gain from "global warming" are scientists and politicians (namely green liberals). If you want to be against pollution and for the environment that's great. Don't bullshit us that the planet is gonna freaking crack in half though because we burn oil. It's poppycock.

There is a LOT of data to refute that the cause of global warming is CO2 levels.

[piratemonkey]

You do realize then that this "concensus" of scientists earn huge amounts of money from their "findings".

Not true.

Scientists are almost always salaried by the institution they work for and are forbidden to use Federal grant money to augment their salaries.

Scientists, in universities, don't make a penny more or less because of the results of thier research.



You also have to ask a real simple question...what do corporations have to lose by Global Warming being true? NOTHING.
Huh? This is just patently false.


Has oil stopped being used? Nope.
Not yet. Are you actually claiming that oil companies have nothing to lose by a drop in oil demand?

That theory doesn't pass econ 101.

. Now WHO do you think will own and run these alternate fuel sources? The same damn companies that provide you oil now.
Maybe yes, maybe no.

Why do you think that the oil companies will be running wind farms? It could happen, but isn't necessarily true at all.


Now you really gotta ask about these scientists that are making BILLIONS...YES BILLIONS...researching global warming with no PROOF..only a "concensus" .....HOGWASH.

Again, individual scientists make nothing. At all.

Corporations do. That's the whole point of their existance.


There is a LOT of data to refute that the cause of global warming is CO2 levels.


Show us the science.

Give us peer-reviewed research that shows what you claim.

I've given you literally 100+ that show what I claim.

[underdawg]

I really wonder why conservatives tend to dispute the concept of global warming. They tend to like the benefits of science when it comes to developing new medicine, new computer technology, modern appliances, genetic research, etc. When science comes in conflict with religion as with evolution, or in conflict with big business such as global warming, they tend to deny the evidence and try to discredit science. I find it amazing that conservatives pick and chose what to believe according to how it effects their pocketbook or their religion. To them if science shows bad news then it must be wrong, and if it is something that benefits them, it must be believable.