Message #7384

[Jason]

 
   

Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

Oh please, that's absurd. NO EVIDENCE? They've done nothing but refute the theory with data! Are you sure that you aren't confusing media talking heads like Rush Blowhard for "experts" and "scientists"? I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry. Aside from myself, I know 30+ in my immediate "sphere" that agree that the issue has become 'emotionally charged' to the point that the data is being skewed so that Everything becomes evidence of GW. Don't confuse what I said - I spoke clearly, you can at least read and comprehend what I took the time to say before ignoring it and responding emotionally.

Merlin, I can sincerely say that I have never been emotional in any response I have ever given to you, that last one to me certainly sounded emotional with all those explanation points.

I have yet to see a skeptic do more than poke holes in scientific data which is usually changing as new data arises.  With that new data, nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening. I have seen some crazy alternative theories, like the Mars one printed earlier, but it isn't accepted by the general scientitific community. As for the 30+ you know, I have no information on your private circle, but I am sure you know that no scientific theory has ever excaped complete criticsm.

Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.
You clearly are looking for me to portray this in a negative light, even if I am not. I did not use the word hysterical - that was your word. What I said was that the data was being interpreted askew by emotionally-driven scientists. I didn't call them emotional or hysterical.

Otherwise - you are comparing apples to watermelons. If there were an asteroid coming for the planet, we wouldn't be arguing. There would be evidence to show that a big rock was flying its way toward us. I'll bet arguments ensue over the best way to divert it though! In the case of GW, the growing skepticism is due not to politics, but, adherence to standard practices & logic. We want to see the models making correct predictions and we want to see some evidence showing a smoking gun.

I am not looking to portray you, or anyone in a negative light, however, I disagree with anyone who portrays scientists (who are simply presenting their findings in global warming) as emotional, alarmist, hysterical, whatever.  As for the "growing skepticsm," I don't see it, in fact, what I see is the scientific consensus firming up that industry (man) is responsible.