We have to be very concerned about source. If someone starts quoting out of Pravda, NewsMax, canada.com, yada yada ad barf infinitum, then right off the bat there's no reason to take them seriously. And less reason to waste our time dealing with an issue from such a source.

There's much evidence on the Global Warming side. However, I'm not a global warming alarmist. I am a radical middle-of-the-roader forced on occasion, especially in here, to take on the appearance of radical left-wing beliefs. Imagine being a meat-eater and facing a discussion with Ed Gein, after which people accuse you of having said things favorable to vegetarianism.

The point here is to not get caught up referenc...

We have to be very concerned about source. If someone starts quoting out of Pravda, NewsMax, canada.com, yada yada ad barf infinitum, then right off the bat there's no reason to take them seriously. And less reason to waste our time dealing with an issue from such a source.

There's much evidence on the Global Warming side. However, I'm not a global warming alarmist. I am a radical middle-of-the-roader forced on occasion, especially in here, to take on the appearance of radical left-wing beliefs. Imagine being a meat-eater and facing a discussion with Ed Gein, after which people accuse you of having said things favorable to vegetarianism.

The point here is to not get caught up referencing unreliable sources (many types of unreliable, but in the case of canada.com because it's a hotbed of bought & paid-for conservative fiction). It does someone's cause no good, and shows that they either have to look underneath the barrel to find 'supportive' stuff or that they don't yet know any better.

We have to be very concerned about source. If someone starts quoting
out of Pravda, NewsMax, canada.com, yada yada ad barf infinitum, then
right off the bat there's no reason to take them seriously. And less
reason to waste our time dealing with an issue from such a source.

I've heard lots of ignorant things. With all due respect, this takes the cake!
Is it too difficult for you to address the issue, fact, or propaganda in question that you just make the entire source that doesn't fit your political bias irrelavent? This makes it impossible to communicate and leads me to believe you cannot make a case for what you believe in light of facts with which you disagree. Your prefe...

We have to be very concerned about source. If someone starts quoting
out of Pravda, NewsMax, canada.com, yada yada ad barf infinitum, then
right off the bat there's no reason to take them seriously. And less
reason to waste our time dealing with an issue from such a source.

I've heard lots of ignorant things. With all due respect, this takes the cake!
Is it too difficult for you to address the issue, fact, or propaganda in question that you just make the entire source that doesn't fit your political bias irrelavent? This makes it impossible to communicate and leads me to believe you cannot make a case for what you believe in light of facts with which you disagree. Your preference is to dismiss in some sort of anti-intellectual, self-modified censorship.

Well, that is sad. Where do you find news and information that is 100% without bias? Give me examples of the "lies" or "corruption" you are talking about. At least explain how the information in this clip is not credible without a fallacious attack against the source. Can we just all agree that almost all sources are biased, whether it be institutional, editorial, or personal to the the reporter or editor.
I like to say that a common problem those on the left have is their intellectual starting point, sources, and opinion are all dependent on one another. You are making that abundantly clear.
The more something is disregarded out of hand, without evidence, examples, or reasons the more cre...

Well, that is sad. Where do you find news and information that is 100% without bias? Give me examples of the "lies" or "corruption" you are talking about. At least explain how the information in this clip is not credible without a fallacious attack against the source. Can we just all agree that almost all sources are biased, whether it be institutional, editorial, or personal to the the reporter or editor.
I like to say that a common problem those on the left have is their intellectual starting point, sources, and opinion are all dependent on one another. You are making that abundantly clear.
The more something is disregarded out of hand, without evidence, examples, or reasons the more credibility I lend to it. I know nothing about the persuasions of Canada.com, but your remarks seem to me to suggest they are credible.

I speak of crap journalism, and you go to the extreme of asking where info is "100% without bias".

"Give me examples". I just provided one to n2sooners.

My point is clear. I can find an overwhelming agreement on the global warming issue among the planet's scientists. If I look for skeptical views, suddenly most of the sources begin to look very ratty.

Not that I can't find respectable sources. But then, I imagine you can, too.

This is under two minutes long. This is the BBC documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle and runs an hour an...

I speak of crap journalism, and you go to the extreme of asking where info is "100% without bias".

"Give me examples". I just provided one to n2sooners.

My point is clear. I can find an overwhelming agreement on the global warming issue among the planet's scientists. If I look for skeptical views, suddenly most of the sources begin to look very ratty.

Not that I can't find respectable sources. But then, I imagine you can, too.

This is under two minutes long. This is the BBC documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle and runs an hour and sixteen minutes.

And don't forget to look into global dimming (=less sunlight due to more clouds). It was covered in eg Science two springs back (2005), as well as in a report from BBC.

"I know nothing about the persuasions of Canada.com". I know. That's why I was cautioning you about it. Don't fish for data at canadafreepress.com, either...

And, cniq cniq, I've never even been to "Daily Kos". And yes, willhelm, there are some sources I consider more reliable than others. And that can depend on the author at the source. We form these judgements.

However, where have I clipmarked or quoted from michaelmoore.com?

Maybe the problem is in calling it a "religion". If the overwhelming majority of scientists in appropriate specialties are saying that global warming is FerReal, then to me it wouldn't make much sense to bet against them.

So far the evidence is on their side. On the other side, if we look at those scientists in appropriate specialties, we see that most don't have reasonable points to make. Those who did, have only done the good skeptical job of allowing some fixes to the data to fine-tune the overall argument. And as Molly Ivins pointed out "we find a lot of people who know a fair amount about earth sciences seriously worried about what mankind is doing to the planet Earth. On the other...

Maybe the problem is in calling it a "religion". If the overwhelming majority of scientists in appropriate specialties are saying that global warming is FerReal, then to me it wouldn't make much sense to bet against them.

So far the evidence is on their side. On the other side, if we look at those scientists in appropriate specialties, we see that most don't have reasonable points to make. Those who did, have only done the good skeptical job of allowing some fixes to the data to fine-tune the overall argument. And as Molly Ivins pointed out "we find a lot of people who know a fair amount about earth sciences seriously worried about what mankind is doing to the planet Earth. On the other hand, we have a lot of people with an ideological commitment to pure capitalism arguing that this is all hooey."

I've got some reservations, but where I used to sit on the fence I now have a finger out just to keep touch with it.

If the overwhelming majority of scientists in appropriate specialties are saying that global warming is FerReal, then to me it wouldn't make much sense to bet against them.

First, while the majority of scientists believe in global warming, there isn't a vast majority of them who believe that it is mostly or entirely man made. You see, most scientists believe the world warmed and cooled long before man ever entered the picture and there are a lot of them in the right fields who believe that global warming would be happening even if man weren't here.

Second, it is usually the skeptic, not the conformist, who makes the breakthroughs when it comes to science.

So far the ...

read more»

If the overwhelming majority of scientists in appropriate specialties are saying that global warming is FerReal, then to me it wouldn't make much sense to bet against them.

First, while the majority of scientists believe in global warming, there isn't a vast majority of them who believe that it is mostly or entirely man made. You see, most scientists believe the world warmed and cooled long before man ever entered the picture and there are a lot of them in the right fields who believe that global warming would be happening even if man weren't here.

Second, it is usually the skeptic, not the conformist, who makes the breakthroughs when it comes to science.

So far the evidence is on their side. On the other side, if we look at those scientists in appropriate specialties, we see that most don't have reasonable points to make.

According to who? We know now that the Earth isn't the only body in the solar system undergoing global warming. Yet the global warming alarmists are always quick to dismiss the primary heat source of the entire solar system as too insignificant to cause any global warming. That, to me, sounds like a pretty unreasonable position.

As for calling it a religion, I call it that because of the blind faith the believers have in global warming. Anyone who says anything against global warming is quickly attacked and dismissed as unimportant or unqualified no matter what their credentials. The alarmists want no discussion on their beliefs. They want them to be accepted completely and attack anyone who dares stand up to them. That isn't science, that is religion. And it is a pretty vicious religion at that because it takes no prisoners and won't rest until everyone is a convert, even if they have to do it through legislation.

One thing at a time. Astronomer Phil Plait took on the subject Is global warming solar induced? on April 29th in his blog Bad Astronomy. Phil is a neat guy, in person and in his writings, and he's great at explaining this sci-tech stuff...

Second, no, there aren't a lot of scientists "in the right fields" who believe that global warming would be happening even if man weren't here. The concensus view on the topic of global warming is vast, and spans many scientific disciplines including: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Meteorological Society, The Am...

One thing at a time. Astronomer Phil Plait took on the subject Is global warming solar induced? on April 29th in his blog Bad Astronomy. Phil is a neat guy, in person and in his writings, and he's great at explaining this sci-tech stuff...

Second, no, there aren't a lot of scientists "in the right fields" who believe that global warming would be happening even if man weren't here. The concensus view on the topic of global warming is vast, and spans many scientific disciplines including: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (which includes the nation's leading climate modelers), and the Nation Academies of Sciences of: The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Belgium, Indonesia, Ireland, and Sweden. And the list goes on...

One of the best sources of information regarding this topic, divided into short concise rebuttals for skeptics, is on the environmental website
the Gristmill. It's based upon the science of global warming and not just rhetoric.

Third, we're using the term "skeptic" in two different ways. For one, when saying whether it's the skeptic or the "conformist" who makes scientific breakthroughs. I'm a skeptic. I belong to the Skeptics society. I subscribe to Richard Feynman's "There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." Phil Plait, mentioned above, is also a Skeptic. But, you've been using "skeptic" to also mean someone opposed to the global warming Thingie, and that's a whole different meaning. And, I'm outta room...