Page 9 of 9 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2011, 10:21 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, a lot of you do. You can start with the left-wing drive by media, the climate scientists, etc. People still believe them, even when it has been proven that they have been totally dishonest.

Example: Sll the accusations towards Glenn Beck about half a year ago about him preaching violence, and then it gets debunked when I found the full clip.

Example 2: I'll let you find this for yourself but Ed Schultz tried to smear Governor Rick Perry as a racist, when the full speech clearly shows Perry was referring to the National Debt.

Inuyasha, nobody has ever claimed that the entire field of climate science has been proven dishonest. That level of dishonesty could not even exist, not even getting into the issues of climate-gate not being considered a failure of integrity by outside investigators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... #Responses (which I assume you are referring to)

The latter two aren't matters of expert opinion, thus would not be covered by the situation. Experts can be discredited, and other experts will be aware of this. The public is not necessarily aware though, as seen by the various bogus experts.

Quote:
Maybe you should ask for clarification next time.

I'd only do that if it seemed reasonable that I had misinterpreted something, not that you had made a random comment.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Aug 2011, 10:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, a lot of you do. You can start with the left-wing drive by media, the climate scientists, etc. People still believe them, even when it has been proven that they have been totally dishonest.

Example: Sll the accusations towards Glenn Beck about half a year ago about him preaching violence, and then it gets debunked when I found the full clip.

Example 2: I'll let you find this for yourself but Ed Schultz tried to smear Governor Rick Perry as a racist, when the full speech clearly shows Perry was referring to the National Debt.

Inuyasha, nobody has ever claimed that the entire field of climate science has been proven dishonest. That level of dishonesty could not even exist, not even getting into the issues of climate-gate not being considered a failure of integrity by outside investigators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... #Responses (which I assume you are referring to)

The latter two aren't matters of expert opinion, thus would not be covered by the situation. Experts can be discredited, and other experts will be aware of this. The public is not necessarily aware though, as seen by the various bogus experts.


I'm not claiming all the climate scientists are dishonest, it really would only have take a handful to screw up all the others' models. I actually was an intern at Goddard Space Flight Center at the time this came to light, and what I heard was the climate scientists at Goddard were extremely pissed off at the scientists that pulled that stunt, because it screwed up their models, and made them look like they were trying to mislead the public, when they had in fact been mislead as well.

My last two examples have to do with public trust, as we've seen lately a lot of what Glenn Beck warned about is coming true, many investors are afraid the US dollar is going to lose a lot of value very rapidly now. Only thing that saved us from it happening already, is the European financial meltdowns.

Was Glenn Beck wrong about things sometimes, sure, but he never claimed to be a prophet or a psychic. He showed people what he had researched, and showed how he was fitting pieces together rather like a detective. His presentation methods were intended to provide people some comic relief, probably also to keep people from ending up in depression, and his messages were actually rather good ones. I'm still concerned about who ends up in power in Libya, considering the fanatics are the ones that are the best organized.

Ed Schultz is in a position of trust, I don't really care that he is on the air, but people here need to wise up to the fact that a lot of the horrible things that they have been told about Conservatives, are largely not true. A lot of what they were told about the tea party, was a load of garbage.

You guys need to realize that I live a couple hours from Chicago (thankfully not in the state of Illinois), it is well known that Chicago is extremely corrupt. What I have seen coming from the White House is pretty much the Chicago way, of pay to play, intimidation tactics, etc. For all you people that claim I'm somehow stupid for watching Fox News, you need to consider the fact that I expected the kind of corruption we're seeing from the Obama Administration back in early 2008, because I watched Fox News. I didn't just pay attention to Fox News though, I used Drudge Report and other online sources.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you should ask for clarification next time.

I'd only do that if it seemed reasonable that I had misinterpreted something, not that you had made a random comment.


Okay, then be prepared for another situation like that in the future.


Finally when Obama is talking about millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share, that is nothing more than a line he has had poll-tested to get the most public approval he can possibly get. In reality he actually does mean the middle class, he actually does mean small business owners, and he actually does mean retirees. People need to face the fact that he is doing precisely what he said he'd do.

That our energy costs would, "necessarily sky rocket."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxnT5tHVIo[/youtube]

He wants high energy costs.

In fact, I really can't think of one good thing Obama has done for Jobs (I consider the green energy thing to be a scam) and the economy.

Obama is in reality looking for anyone he can blame for his failed policies, he's blaming Republicans, the rich, hell he's even blaming the Japanese Earthquake, and the Arab Spring.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

24 Aug 2011, 8:38 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not claiming all the climate scientists are dishonest, it really would only have take a handful to screw up all the others' models. I actually was an intern at Goddard Space Flight Center at the time this came to light, and what I heard was the climate scientists at Goddard were extremely pissed off at the scientists that pulled that stunt, because it screwed up their models, and made them look like they were trying to mislead the public, when they had in fact been mislead as well.


^ Case and point as to why people without a formal education on a particular subject should not be making judgements about said subject.

It's unclear whether this statement was made from ignorance or whether it's genuine deceit, but either way it's false. The CRU does control or contribute to the majority of the models used around the world. There's no way the scientists at Goddard were some how pissed off about their own models being messed up because the GISS models from Goddard (which are remote sensing models) and the NCDC models from NOAA are completely, 100% independent from all CRU data. These models have, however, shown agreement with the CRU models (again, independent) which has helped to debunk the notion that any meaningful messing with data had even occurred at CRU to begin with.

Now I do not doubt that the Goddard scientists were angered with CRU controversy. But their reason for anger was likely because they knew what reactions would be coming down the pike from non-experts looking for any shred of doubt to completely 'debunk' climate change for their own personal agendas. Reactions from non-professionals should not count, period. Non-experts are clearly not in a position debunk anything when they lack sufficient understanding of the subject and basic testing/modeling procedures.

If there is any sort of consensus among true scientists doubting the integrity of the data used today (from various global sources - not just the CRU) then please bring it. Otherwise, there is no solid argument here.