Get Off HIs Back - By Ben Stein 9/4/2005
Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 19 Next
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:17 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
I'm more interested in relevant facts. So, let's see you refute what the Centre for Media and Democracy has to say about GlobalWarming.org and JunkScience.com
What is it exactly you're daring to have refuted? That they have funding ties to conservative sources?
Blue_Nose @ Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:23 pm
As usual Jaime, IceOwl is more concerned with denunciation than interpretation.... only this time, he's outsourced it to this Centre.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:35 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
"I believe in God" = "I believe in global warming"
They are no different. Both are statements of faith.
They are no different. Both are statements of faith.
I would disgaree. Belief in god invokes the supernatural, wheras belief in science necessarily prohibits the supernatural as an explanation for phenomona.
No, belief is belief. Science is not about belief, it is about demonstration, regardless of belief.
The height of science? "I do not believe this, yet it is so."
"I believe in science" is an oxymoron. It may be a pleasantly comfortable oxymoron, but it is one nonetheless.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
It is perfectly reasonable to say "Based on the evidence presented to me, I conclude that the probability is human-casued emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are resulting in measurable change to the planetry climate."
This may be reasonable, but it is neither science nor belief. (If of course, belief is an irrational acceptance of an idea), then there is no belief expressed in your offered quote. Nor is there science, unless the evidence mentioned is demonstrable (i.e., reproducible results, predictability, et c., et c.).
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Calling me an idiot hardly furthers your argument.
You're right. Heat of passion, that sort of thing. Pardonnez-moi, mon défaut.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The planet is heating up. I happen to think that we are causing it, but as far as I'm concerned it's a moot point since no one is very interested in dealing with it.
Excellent point.
Myself, I think Winnipeg needs palm trees.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:39 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
IceOwl IceOwl:
I'm more interested in relevant facts. So, let's see you refute what the Centre for Media and Democracy has to say about GlobalWarming.org and JunkScience.com
What is it exactly you're daring to have refuted? That they have funding ties to conservative sources?
I'm asking you to either show how, by apparently being "left-wing", the Center for Media and Democracy's claims are somehow less legitimate, or admit that you cited bunk sources.
Great. By your logic, you've insulated GlobalWarming.org from attack on the grounds that it has right wing sources. Just because it putatively has right-wing sources, by what you've just said, it's conclusions should not be regarded as "somehow less legitimate."
Thanks for conceding that.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:41 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
As usual Jaime, IceOwl is more concerned with denunciation than interpretation.... only this time, he's outsourced it to this Centre.
I know. But it's all for the sake of the game.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:52 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
IceOwl IceOwl:
I'm more interested in relevant facts. So, let's see you refute what the Centre for Media and Democracy has to say about GlobalWarming.org and JunkScience.com
What is it exactly you're daring to have refuted? That they have funding ties to conservative sources?
I'm asking you to either show how, by apparently being "left-wing", the Center for Media and Democracy's claims are somehow less legitimate, or admit that you cited bunk sources.
Great. By your logic, you've insulated GlobalWarming.org from attack on the grounds that it has right wing sources. Just because it putatively has right-wing sources, by what you've just said, it's conclusions should not be regarded as "somehow less legitimate."
No, I never said anything about GlobalWarming.org being bunk because it had right-wing sources. You said that and attributed it to me. I said that GlobalWarming.org and JunkScience.com are fronted by industry shills and think tanks who are bent on acting irresponsibly and cutting costs at any cost, and that is why your sources are bunk.
So, you said my sources were bunk, without actually naming them.
And the distinction is?
Blue_Nose @ Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:13 am
The fact is, IceOwl, you haven't proved anything other than the source of funding of these reports. Regardless of whether your claims are true (I would be skeptical, as money is money when doing research, and doesn't automatically prove that they have an agenda) can you actually make any useful comments on the findings of the sites mentioned?
BartSimpson @ Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:14 am
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Nothing of substance
I'll take that as an admission that I'm right.
You dumb, fucking idiot. Must I really have to spell it out for you that this is an insult?
No, I imagine you'll reinvent "dumb, fucking idiot" to be a compliment.
BartSimpson @ Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:13 am
IceOwl IceOwl:
...my comments are...Bullshit.
I agree.
Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 19 Next