113 replies to this topic

[TimG]

I'm skeptical of information, but you have to set the bar the same for both sides. Do you think that the Newsweek article is enough evidence that this theory was important to the science in the 1970s?

It is on wikipedia with a link to the source. Is that not enough?

In any case, my point is the theory had considerabily more credibility than UFOs or crystal power. It may have been disputed but it was real.

[Keepitsimple]

My point in posting the article was not whether we had Global Cooling or Global Warming. It was that back then, it was still OK to have differing opinions.....OK to clearly state that there WAS significant cooling from the 40's to the 70's - in spite of rising CO2. The level of scientific discourse was still one of unsubsidized research - unpoliticized research - and the give and take of scientific synthesis, analysis, proving and disproving. Oh for a return to those days.

[Michael Hardner]

It is on wikipedia with a link to the source. Is that not enough?

In any case, my point is the theory had considerabily more credibility than UFOs or crystal power. It may have been disputed but it was real.

It is enough, but the link didn't work for me. Waldo provided a compelling response on the other thread, but I didn't see a link there either. I'll check again.

Yes, after having read the conclusions of Peterson's study I concur that it had more credibility than UFOs or crystal power, I'll stop using that analogy now.

[Michael Hardner]

My point in posting the article was not whether we had Global Cooling or Global Warming. It was that back then, it was still OK to have differing opinions....

We can go back there. If you are truly sick of the fake "left-right politics industry" - and the giant proxy organizations that maintain a constant political fight because it benefits them to do so - then you can do your part by continuing to contribute towards having reasoned and solutions-focused debate on this board. It may not lead anywhere, but at least we will be living without sin.

[lukin]

Everyone needs to read the actual emails. There are some interesting nuggets here. read carefully and try to understand the implications.


http://di2.nu/foia/f...1/mail/4195.txt

Sorry waldo, even you won't be able to spin these with your numerous, boring block quotes.

Edited by lukin, 01 December 2011 - 04:19 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that reading the emails in full is better.

[waldo]

I agree that reading the emails in full is better.

What! You want context? Buddy lukin is aghast he can't get any mileage over this... days back he blasted out of the gate with his own thread on the SonOfHackergate2.0... too excited to realize there already was one started. Both threads have seemed to wash out... so, buddy lukin is trying again... having another go at it.

[lukin]

What! You want context? Buddy lukin is aghast he can't get any mileage over this... days back he blasted out of the gate with his own thread on the SonOfHackergate2.0... too excited to realize there already was one started. Both threads have seemed to wash out... so, buddy lukin is trying again... having another go at it.

You're wrong again walnut.

[lukin]

Anyone with common sense realizes that there is no legitimate evidence humans are causing globaloney warming/climate change. It's all about a transfer of wealth..it's that simple.

Edited by lukin, 01 December 2011 - 06:45 PM.

[waldo]

Anyone with common sense realizes that there is no legitimate evidence humans are causing globaloney warming/climate change. It's all about a transfer of wealth..it's that simple.

take a shot... see if you can even structure a sentence to actually describe what, to you, would constitute, as you say, "legitimate evidence".

[lukin]

take a shot... see if you can even structure a sentence to actually describe what, to you, would constitute, as you say, "legitimate evidence".

Waldo with the comprehension problem. There isn't any legitimate evidence supporting human cause GW...just a bunch of blather from fools who's gig is up.

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo with the comprehension problem. There isn't any legitimate evidence supporting human cause GW...just a bunch of blather from fools who's gig is up.

You didn't describe the legitimate evidence, though.

Oh well... we'll have to wait for TimG's return. I learn something of skepticism from him...

[lukin]

You didn't describe the legitimate evidence, though.

Oh well... we'll have to wait for TimG's return. I learn something of skepticism from him...

One cannot describe "legitimate evidence" because there isn't any, Mike. You want to believe the sky is falling, then fine, but don't expect me to fall for the same scam.

Educate yourself, Mike.

http://foia2011.org/

Edited by lukin, 02 December 2011 - 06:23 AM.

[waldo]

One cannot describe "legitimate evidence" because there isn't any, Mike. You want to believe the sky is falling, then fine, but don't expect me to fall for the same scam.

you now have two of us asking you to detail the kind/degree of evidence you would consider legitimate... we both fully recognize and acknowledge that you... you... take a position that there isn't any existing legitimate evidence. Everyone is also well aware of the type of skeptical position you espouse. However, the repeated questions are asking you to define what kind/degree of evidence you would consider as legitimate... what would you be looking for... what would be legitimate in your estimation, in your view, to suggest that mankind has had an effect on what you describe as, "globaloney warming and globaloney climate change". It's really quite a simple request, now coming at you from two of us...

[lukin]

you now have two of us asking you to detail the kind/degree of evidence you would consider legitimate... we both fully recognize and acknowledge that you... you... take a position that there isn't any existing legitimate evidence. Everyone is also well aware of the type of skeptical position you espouse. However, the repeated questions are asking you to define what kind/degree of evidence you would consider as legitimate... what would you be looking for... what would be legitimate in your estimation, in your view, to suggest that mankind has had an effect on what you describe as, "globaloney warming and globaloney climate change". It's really quite a simple request, now coming at you from two of us...

You have no clue. Human activity is not responsible for climate change. End of story. Go cry with Al Gore.