Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If you having to think those things makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Lord knows, you do seem to need all the help you can get.

---

Quote:

---

... YOUR scientist (sic) who promote man made global warming are as pure as the wind driven snow, while my sources are nothing more than Big Oil or Gov't shills ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I'm going to stop trying to debate this issue and go to bed but coudn't resist one last metaphore that occured to me.

Those that deny the existance or seriousness of global warming resemble, to me, motorcycle riders who refuse to buy a helmet on the grounds that they are expensive and they read somewhere that helmets don't improve safety much. They may survive to old age (although unless they have looked at an accurate sample of statistics their descision could be viewed as poorly informed), but the consequences of them being wrong could be anywhere from bad to fatal. Now I don't mind if other people want to take risks with their lives, what I do object to is goverments taking risks with the planet's ecosystem without consulting me.

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

Thank you.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

---

Quote:

---

It was so self evident, I couldn't see how ANYONE didn't see the impending problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.

---

The UN and the NAS (US National Academy of Sciences) do agree. Who else are you looking for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO

---

Quote:

---

hAre you sure the NAS is in agreement?

---

Quote:

---

yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

---

Quote:

---

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

---

Quote:

---

And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)

---

Quote:

---

According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.

---

Quote:

---

To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.

---

Quote:

---

Of course, I could be wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.

---

Just shut up before you embarrass yourself further you sad pathetic little man.

You haven't had a debate with anyone here ever, you've never brought anything to a discussion and every time you attempt to join in you end up in a slanging match with someone, me or whoever simply because the only way to perpetuate your warped, freighted nasty little viewpoint is to attack those that hold different ones rather than debating your own.

I have had civil debates with people here, you never have and never will, which just goes to prove what you say applies infinitely more to you than me or anyone else here (and I include PirateNews, you're worse by far).

You are nothing but a tired sad little hypocrite.

I’ll see you in September, or not, it’s up to you if you want to carry out your threats of physical violence, or prove finally that you're, as they say, "all mouth and no trousers".

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am not saying you can't prove or disprove global warming by evidence. I am saying that for most people, it is LIKE that. It is LIKE trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have NEVER seen anyone change his or her mind on this subject because someone brought new "evidence" to their attention. Have you? THAT is my point.

---

Quote:

---

Listen, you can call me stupid, arrogant, wrong, a dumbass, whatever you want.

---

Quote:

---

But when you tell me I am rejecting science, that goes too far. Just because I have different standards in evaluating evidence than you doesn't mean YOURS is "scientific" and mine isn't. Of course you think I'm wrong. You've made up your mind and everyone else who doesn't agree is wrong --and no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

If you have scientific evidence to back up global warming, I am telling you right now that I have no trouble admitting in public, right here on RWE, that I was wrong and I am now converted. However, I have seen nothing in all the links and documents you and the others have ever posted that is convincing so far.

---

Quote:

---

And yes, I am as skeptical in all other areas as I am in this. My standards are my standards, and in many many fields that claim to have scientific consensus, the evidence just doesn't measure up for me. For example, I do not believe vaccines ever been proven to be effective or safe, despite "scientific" claims to the contrary.

---

Quote:

---

I don't want to spiral into another endless GW name-calling session. So that is all I am going to say. Please try not to insult me again, though I fear that is an impossible request.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
FutureMrsFillion,

I have to say, I approve of your taste in your intended.

I was irked, I admit.

PDCharles wrote this:
yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

Aside from being wrong in his facts (he was mistakenly referring to the same study I was linking), he impugned my integity. Yes, I was irked. And no, it probably wasn't strictly necessary, but then, the icons are there for a reason, I suppose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny how you attempt to project your own shortcomings and faults onto others. I mean, HI-LARIOUSLY funny. I've had countless civil discussions on fff.net, just none w/ YOU. Key word - YOU.

---

Quote:

---

I'll still be here in Sept, though I'll retract that pint I was going to buy you. There are limits to how far Southern hospitality can go.

---

Quote:

---

More mouth and trousers than you can handle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

---

Quote:

---

Rue,

I didn't switch to the dark side all of a sudden.

It was late and I was sleepy and it seems my intent was misinterpreted. I was reading the more recent 2006 article on the very site BDN had posted from, WITH findings suggesting human intensified GW.

I felt it was no need to post that since you had already done so just before I was going to and they just weren't listening. thus the crap emote.
Unfortunately I was unable to immediately respond to your inquiry.

...and thanx FMF. my skin is tougher than 60 grit SP though.

---

Quote:

---

I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

---

Quote:

---

I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

There is a joke about a biologist, physicist, and mathematician riding a train into Scotland. They see a black sheep out on a pasture. The biologist exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black." The physicist corrects, "Well, actually, at least one sheep in Scotland is black." The mathematician refines, "No, at least one sheep in Scotland is black, on at least one side."
I interpret data very conservatively, like the mathematician. If I say at least one sheep in Scotland is black, I like to qualify it with, "assuming sheep in Scotland are the same color on both sides." It is nice to have assumptions clearly defined--it increases falsifiability, which is the hallmark of good science.

BTW, I appreciate talking to you Emma. You're the first person in a long, long time I've met here who can discuss this topic with both conviction, logic, and respect. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
OH ! Then I got it your post all wrong! Well, they don't have an apology icon, so how's about this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yo Citizen, you know that me and AU rarely see eye to eye here, but I don't see him as being a senseless violence-type. I think you're getting worked up over something that ain't gonna go down.
Embrace your Shaolin side, my brother. Don't let him get to ya like that.

Unofficial moderator Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.

Or were you joking about my joking?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stinkingrose:
Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.

---

Quote:

---

Like I said Armchair Quarterback, if you want to make good on the threats of physical violence you've made against me in the past I'll be ready and waiting. We both know you won’t, its real easy to threaten people over the net, not so easy face to face, but you wouldn't know that, never having done it. Whatever else I've done, whatever else I am I've never threatened to beat some one up over the internet, your pathetic.

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


b ) Yeah, I'm gonna bring a weapon to an AIRPORT....NOT! ROFLOL !! 9/11 happened here, moron, not that I'd bring any weapons anyway....you must have seen Deliverance a few too many times.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. No one has asked he big question yet.

Why are alligators' genitals tucked up into a slit in their bodies?

a)Modesty?

b)Intelligent design?

c)The fact that all the proto-alligators whose dangly bits didn't tuck up had them bitten off by proto-snapping turtles and couldn't reproduce?

d)Use of depleted uranium rounds by the Stegosaurs in the Stegosaurus-Triceratops Wars of the Cretaecous?

e)something else?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
(Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?)

---