Fox News: 120% Of The Public Thinks Scientists May Falsify GW Data

[TheBrew]

That has been getting difficult since some posters seem to be incapable of discussing facts.

Facts? You mean your facts.

I suggest you close down this thread as it is quickly devolving and it would save some posters any more embarrassment.

"Some" posters want a civil discussion on this topic - the only embarrassment I see is with the litany of cheap shots. Thats the only thing that needs to close.

I'm sorry, but I do not "own" facts and they cannot be "mine". The only thing I commented on the thread was Fox New's stupidity in understanding simple mathematics. I am sure that you can appreciate it when people get simple math wrong, especially on such a scale when multiple people have looked at it before it goes on the air.

A good discussion involves looking at the evidence presented (or facts) and using it to make a rational case. Then someone responds with a different case using those same facts. You cannot debate someone when they simply refuse to acknowledge the countering arguments. That is what is happening here, where one side presents an arguments, the other attacks that argument using reason, and instead of responding to those attacks, the original side keeps on making the same argument. You can see it all across the board when this topic is broached. It has become banal.

 

[Gertch]

I like when people hide thier biased links behind "tinyurl".

Gertch's source? http://www.climatechangefraud.com/

Yes. Tinyurl is good for hiding urls, well, until someone actually goes there. Then the jig is up! Ya got me.

As I said there are plenty of other stories along the same lines. You just have to search for them.

But we both know it doesn't matter as this has never been science based but rather a solely political charade. And by political I'm leaning towards fascist.

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

 

[AnyStar]

High-Horses are a great pedistal for mud slinging. both sides are going to have opinions and facts, from many sources...

i'd like to second the earlier request to stop making personal jabs, it only makes YOU look foolish, rather than your intended belittling your target.

 

[Roger Wilco]

But we both know it doesn't matter as this has never been science based but rather a solely political charade. And by political I'm leaning towards fascist.

That's a lie.
The only ones who are politicising this, is your side.

 

[Lindley]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

 

[Chilli]

Jon Stewart: So, in attacking scientists for falsifying data to support global warming, you've cited a poll that adds up to 120%.

Watch as the Daily Show rapes your face and pretty much calls Gretchen Carlson a dumb whore...that or Fox's viewers are all a bunch of dumb whores who don't know the meaning of simple words. .

You could try linking videos that actually appear in more than one country.

He did.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

We have at least a couple, and cultcross and I have patiently explained the science in several threads over the years in TNZ and Sci&Tech. Of course, it gets frustrating when the same people come back a few months later and spout the same misinformation ("but volcanoes emit more CO2 in a year than humans ever have!!1!" ). It's either willful ignorance or deliberate lies. The fundamental basics of the science are actually surprisingly straightforward.

 

[ST-One]

That has been getting difficult since some posters seem to be incapable of discussing facts.

Facts? You mean your facts.

No, I guess he's talking about real, you know, actual facts.

 

[Arrqh]

As I said there are plenty of other stories along the same lines. You just have to search for them.

There's actual science out there too if you'd like to try search for that. You know, for a change of pace.

 

[MarianLH]

That has been getting difficult since some posters seem to be incapable of discussing facts.

Facts? You mean your facts.

Kaiidth.

(This is a Trek board, after all )

That said, I second the "post, not poster" sentiment. There's always TNZ if you want the catharsis of telling someone off.


Marian

 

[sidious618]

Facts? You mean your facts.

That makes no sense. Facts are either real or they're not. No one owns them.

 

[Marc]

Facts? You mean your facts.

That makes no sense. Facts are either real or they're not. No one owns them.

not you're forgetting that facts that come from denialist side are indupstable - even when it's one paper with no peer review, no wide distribution, based on research done by peoplewho aren't experts in the field (and their supporters like the bozo who's prior decrying of a major issue was to say the abestos didn't pose a health risk and it was just like talcum powder) and come from sites like climatechangefraud (but were the URL is hidden).

Anything else regardless of peer review, factual basis, evidence is a load of garbage.

 

[MarianLH]

Please don't get my thread locked, Marc.


Marian

 

[Marc]

Please don't get my thread locked, Marc.


Marian

I'm not trying to.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Okay, folks, since there seems to be so much difficulty in having a discussion that doesn't devolve into faction versus faction, here's a nice aid, courtesy of our friend HopefulRomantic:

The Mannerly Art of Disagreement.

This is a great blueprint for how debates and discussions should be conducted here.

 

[Squiggy]

 

[RJDiogenes]

That's the Maninblackerly Art of Disagreement. A common mistake.

 

[bigdaddy]

This is not aimed at any one person, I just have been waiting to use it for weeks and this topic seems perfect!

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

Same thing with recognizing that this is a giant money maker. Is it not?

And why is it that some people think the emails MUST have been doctored? Is it because if they weren't it would be a major problem?

 

[TheBrew]

Because Al Gore is a scarecrow.

Because to ignore the clear profit motive of the deniers is ludicrous.