BF2S Forums While the globe may be warming, it is not manmade.

Braddock wrote:

usmarine wrote:

read above...people agree.  maybe you should be banned

and since when does an argument need to have a link?  do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone?  or do you speak your mind?

p.s  oh wow i hit the wrong key.  thanks brad.  btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy?  if not you should be banned from this section.

I never said you weren't arguing... you're not debating. Dickheads usually argue, more intelligent creatures tend to put forward an argument and then actually debate that argument. If you want to put ignorance up on a pedestal then be my guest just don't expect me to ever take you seriously. If someone wants to tell me their opinion I can simply tell them to shut up and fuck off but if they want to present an actual study or report it's a little bit harder to deny or ignore.

There is also the ever present problem of "belief" it isn't a phenomenon confined to the domain of religiosity. You're going to have trouble arguing and presenting a case against "belief" when the person you're communicating with is scientifically illiterate; or unwilling to learn the science; and they then stick with his/her initial acceptance of an idea that merely appeals to them sans real evidence or real scientific support.

Vilham wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

No it's not.

sure it is.  id rather hear what YOU have to say.  not what douchenozzle reporter / scientist has to.

I agree. Its not like the scientist knows anything.

no, you are missing my point.  you can read and watch whatever you like,  then tell me what your opinion is.  i dont need links for that.  i would assume you form your opinion from multiple sources over the years yes?

so go ahead.  keep being a posh git for all i care.

Braddock wrote:

So you want me to believe that climate change has nothing to do with manmade pollution just because you and Mitch think so?

i dont want you to beleive anything.  who said that?  you are not going to change anyones minds here with links or without links.

usmarine wrote:

Vilham wrote:

usmarine wrote:

sure it is.  id rather hear what YOU have to say.  not what douchenozzle reporter / scientist has to.

I agree. Its not like the scientist knows anything.

no, you are missing my point.  you can read and watch whatever you like,  then tell me what your opinion is.  i dont need links for that.  i would assume you form your opinion from multiple sources over the years yes?

so go ahead.  keep being a posh git for all i care.

Your missing my point. Most people read shit on the news and don't actually check the science behind it themselves. Hence why their opinions are absurd. Hence why people request GOOD CREDIBLE sources for INFORMED opinion.

I hear like when I was seven that dinosaurs were more clever than humans and raptors constructed and armed themselves with laser guns. I don't have any evidence what so ever but I heard it once so it must be true right?

Braddock wrote:

I'll give you in-depth detail on graphic design, auditory interfaces, sonification systems or location-based services if you like but I'm afraid I don't have much of value to offer on the topic of climate change

i have seen plenty.  read plenty.  heard plenty.  now, lets hear what everyone thinks.

usmarine wrote:

i have .... read plenty. ...

O' really now, how come I am not believing this statement, especially in reference to actual scientific studies on climate change?

Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cli … s_ylo=2004
So which thingy did you read? There's a lot there.

Last edited by topal63 (2009-04-01 08:58:55)

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

It's quite simple, if you don't want people to laugh at your opinions then back them up with a well constructed argument.

right...and then people start crying about those very links.  no thanks.  you may find that i debate, i dont.

Boo hoo, people don't like when I link FoxNews so I'm not going to post any links and sulk about it.

It's just a whinge fest with you lately.

AussieReaper wrote:

Boo hoo, people don't like when I link FoxNews so I'm not going to post any links and sulk about it.

when have i posted fox news recently?

it distracts from the discussion and you know it.  you are being ass about it because YOU are one of those people who ruin it with your link crying.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Or has his\her submitted works reviewed by peers and colleagues from the same field of study.

I guess we just should have believed the tobacco industry scientists wholesale and ignored the money trail from their benefactors to the scientists pockets.

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said peer reviewed by peers and colleagues. Tobacco industry scientists we're proven to be wrong. They were proven to be wrong by other scientists. Even when the scales are imbalanced with false reports, the majority of work that academics do leads to a consensus which is correct.

It is pretty obvious when you have scientists pushing for one theory when so much evidence is against what they propose. You've seen it with tobacco and the same thing has happened with climate change. And the same thing happened with Evolution. You can still find academics who believe in Intelligent Design. Some are doctors. But you'll find a handful of them, because it is simply not true when the evidence is reviewed by the scientific community.

Have you ever read an academic journal?

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

It's quite simple, if you don't want people to laugh at your opinions then back them up with a well constructed argument.

right...and then people start crying about those very links.  no thanks.  you may find that i debate, i dont.  so then it becomes a debate about links.  awesome.

Some of the most high-level debates boil down to arguments about the accuracy of references... and that's the way it should be. Solid arguments are often backed up with multiple sources, and that's not just from a political point of view, for example an American scientific study might be backed up by similar studies carried out in Japan or Switzerland and so on. If you go through life blindly accepting things just because they fit into your own point of view you will end up an ignorant bell-end.

It's my opinion that you're an idiot but does that make it in anyway meaningful to a wider audience? No... it's just the opinion of one man, if I could gather statistics on what all the other people on this forum thought of you it would be slightly more significant. If someone else, like my brother Cameronpoe carried out a similar statistical analysis that had the same findings it would have a bit more significance. If someone with more right-wing aligned attitudes, like lowing or someone, carried out the same study and his results agreed with ours then there would be serious weight behind the argument... that's how the human knowledge base tends to work usmarine. Individual opinions are, by and large, meaningless.

topal63 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Or has his\her submitted works reviewed by peers and colleagues from the same field of study.

Let me repeat my earlier challenge

"But of you want a challenge.... Try posting a link to research showing that global warming is real that has not been funded by the govt, or govt proxies like the UN. I doubt you can find any because the govt money has been so pervasive in this area of so called academic research."

Because its not like scientist can be whores or anything like that /sarcasim

I guess we just should have believed the tobacco industry scientists wholesale and ignored the money trail from their benefactors to the scientists pockets.

As for peer review, I wonder is you're a promising grad student with evidence thatthe manmade effects of global warming is false and that you supervisor is a fraud if you'd be published or even graduate. I doubt that you would challenge anything. You would do exactly like everyone else and get on the govt grant gravy train. So peer review can actually act as a filter to preserve teh status quo, which is whoring yourself to govt money. Peer review does not equall credibility review

So please don't act like those reports you using as a soap box are credible, because they aren't. I repeat my challenge if you think credibility is an issue when you link to something, then I'm going to challenge the credibilty of the reports that you are using.

I'll challenge you to turn that into a real argument.

Prove that there is the slightest truth to your conspiracy theory. Specifically that scientists are working in a concerted effort (some secret cabal, or you think they're just to ignorant to understand the very science fields they are educated-in) to undermine the truth that science serves (to expand our knowledge base empirically, theoretically and by independent verification). Also demonstrate, just in the slightest, that the government is also conspiring to throw money at this because it supports a political agenda (as opposed to science; that would not exist with gov. funding) and/or grab for real power in America.

Absurd.

PS: Who do think funds physics research in America. You, private  enterprise or the government on behalf of the people, because it is our best interests to fund science as almost all of it  would go unfunded otherwise.

You can't do can you? I'm challenging the credibility of the reports you hold onto so dearly. They are tainted by money given by an entity that is set to reap $6.7 trillion, an entity that represents the interests of people who would love to create a new market in carbon credits. As for conspiracy??? greed and profit are not a conspiracy they are a driving motivation and when 6.7 trillion is on the table and the creation of a whole new false market in carbon credits will allow wall street profiteers to reap billions, I think that's as far as I need to go.

You  try to say I didn't amke an argument, I would differ on that, people on this thread were calling in to question the credibility of the links on this page. I have now undermined the credibilty of these reports and you don't like it, well tough. The least you could do is retort on how $6.7 trillion isn't a huge moitivating factor, But I doubt you could succeed on that one.

I repeat my challenge, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove your point.  If you continue to attack the debater instead of trying to argue the debate then this thread would really be about you shooting down any dissenting voice while pretending you $hit doesn't stink. Then this isn't much of thread or a debate. I challenged the credibilty of these reports so I repeat my chalenge find us a credible source not paid for by the govt or a govt proxy.

BTW I used to be in academia so I know how the sausage gets made, the ivory is on the outside, but the inside is a septic tank. Oh yah, ridiclous comment about ever read an academic journal, I feel like I was just called a sinner, Sorry for not being a believer LOL.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-04-01 09:25:51)

Braddock wrote:

Some of the most high-level debates boil down to arguments about the accuracy of references... and that's the way it should be. Solid arguments are often backed up with multiple sources, and that's not just from a political point of view, for example an American scientific study might be backed up by similar studies carried out in Japan or Switzerland and so on. If you go through life blindly accepting things just because they fit into your own point of view you will end up an ignorant bell-end.

brad, anyone can google a word and post links.  not impressed tbh.

who said blindy accepting things?  i willl look them up on my own.  i dont need someone googling for me.
apparently you do.

and i think you are a drunk idiot tbh