Honesty of Global Warming movement???

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

(But that tactic has been used by the left for decades to stiffel debate if possible)

What debate? The only thing I see from you is a refusal to debate. Your mind is made up because Professor Limbaugh's "Advanced Conservative Studies" EIB Network has told you what to think about this issue.

And there was no personal attack. A personal attack is saying something like "You are a dickhead." And I would NEVER say that to you.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You know that telling people what they think and why is insulting and a PA in my estimation. (But that tactic has been used by the left for decades to stiffel debate if possible)

I get told what I think and why by the rightists here all day long.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

(But that tactic has been used by the left for decades to stiffel debate if possible)

What debate? The only thing I see from you is a refusal to debate. Your mind is made up because Professor Limbaugh's "Advanced Conservative Studies" EIB Network has told you what to think about this issue.

And there was no personal attack. A personal attack is saying something like "You are a dickhead." And I would NEVER say that to you.

I have posted (many times) differing reports and view points and those sources are always lambasted as bought out and biased (and we all know the other side is as pure as wind driven snow)

An I know you would never insult anyone.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

(But that tactic has been used by the left for decades to stiffel debate if possible)

What debate? The only thing I see from you is a refusal to debate. Your mind is made up because Professor Limbaugh's "Advanced Conservative Studies" EIB Network has told you what to think about this issue.

And there was no personal attack. A personal attack is saying something like "You are a dickhead." And I would NEVER say that to you.

The best we can hope for, I guess, is that we are ALL worng. That would teach everyone a valuable lesson....

I have posted (many times) differing reports and view points and those sources are always lambasted as bought out and biased (and we all know the other side is as pure as wind driven snow)

An I know you would never insult anyone.......

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,400]

>They follow basicly the same course as the rest of the news biggies.

I agree! Most media outlets are similar; FOX just has more of a right wing slant.

> They do however, every once in a while offer the other side of the story. I
> am sure that is why you don't like them.

I don't like them because they tell lies. Mark Foley became a democrat right after he resigned per the FOX subtitle, for example. A recent study showed that FOX viewers believe more falsehoods (like "we found Saddam's WMD stockpiles") than most other viewers of network news. So if you watch FOX a lot, you end up misinformed. (Or at least more misinformed than with other networks.)

>I think that is because that GW alarmists can not survive an open debate.

I'm not talking about the GW alarmists. They can keep making movies about "The Day After" and whatnot, and telling everyone they are about to die. I'm talking about climate scientists.

If you want to have a debate between the alarmists and the deniers, go right ahead. I'm sure there will be lots of sound and fury; sort of a Jerry Springer of global warming. The scientists involved will just keep working. There are plenty of venues where you can go to hear real science being debated, but they might be a bit boring to you. (I have a feeling you'd walk out quickly, because they discuss anthropogenic forcing as if it is a fact, and you've stated you stop reading when you see such things.)

>I will look at the links you posted. I do not expect to find anything new
>but, you never know.

Like I said, you won't. Science is often pretty boring. It's not as exciting as complex conspiracy theories and Michael Crichton novels, but then again, Occam was a boring guy.

[jarrodh 0]

Quote

Quote

>I have will not get to them tonight but I look for the same old same old.

And you will get the same old same old. Just like those scientists who keep saying the earth is round, the sun runs via nuclear fusion, and we evolved from simpler animals. You know, science.

>They also tend to ingore those scientists studing world climiate history.

The sources I listed above ARE the scientists studying climactic history, atmospheric physics, paleontology, solar physics, Greenland ice sheet dynamics, changes in ocean pH due to carbonic acid etc. In other words, they won't tell you what you want to hear, but they are the people doing the peer-reviewed science that we base our understanding on. They don't often make it to FOX though.

You know that telling people what they think and why is insulting and a PA in my estimation. (But that tactic has been used by the left for decades to stiffel debate if possible) But you are a moderator so you can make that distinction as you wish.

And, so you know you are wrong about FOX. They follow basicly the same course as the rest of the news biggies. They do however, every once in a while offer the other side of the story. I am sure that is why you don't like them. I think that is because that GW alarmists can not survive an open debate. Why, because as more info, data gathering processed and why tweaked compurter modle forcasts comes to light, the argument for man made GWing gets weaker and weaker.

2 years ago I was inclined to beleive man was a major cause of GW. But much like once being a supporter of more gun control, once I learned more I changed my views. Once I gained understanding and information and began to understand why people push that crap, I came down on the other side.

I will look at the links you posted. I do not expect to find anything new but, you never know.

Shutup! Your gonna get yourself banned!

Just Kidding

On a serious note, I noticed you said you were once pro gun control but have since changed your mind. Ever since that first day of debate in one of the many gun control threads, I began changing my opinions on gun control and have essentially reversed my original opinion (although i would consider myself a moderate on the issue). In fact Im gonna be going to a gun store in like an hour with my friend so he can buy a "Lee Enfield", whatever that is.I still liked debating with ya'll though since I didnt like the fact it was like 10 to 1 conservative vs liberal battle so I had to say something.

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

since I didnt like the fact it was like 10 to 1 conservative vs liberal battle so I had to say something.

issues here span the range. and, though we like to gripe the site is unbalanced, skydivers come from all walks of life. if you find any topic that feels 10 to 1, it's likely you are not moderate but lean strongly one way. (or, you are treating one or two very busy posters as equivalent to more than one or two people)

neat thing here, lots of viewpoints

gun control is also a lot less "conservative vs liberal" but more just "pro or con"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

A recent study showed that FOX viewers believe more falsehoods (like "we found Saddam's WMD stockpiles") than most other viewers of network news. So if you watch FOX a lot, you end up misinformed. (Or at least more misinformed than with other networks.)

Fox News viewers are probably more likely to answer correctly the question, "Did we find any WMD in Iraq?" Much depends on the exact wording of the question. I think the question that you posted will always get a more positive response from those that know some WMD was found. Those designing the question to be asked can intentionally word it that way in order to get a desired response - in this case showing that Fox News viewers believe more falsehoods.

I think poll results should have to include an exact wording of the question. That is often missing from the reporting of the results. A good example was an approval poll of Clarence Thomas. Instead of just asking whether people approved of him or not, the question included a lengthy list of accusations made against him, with the final question about approval being at the end. The reporting of the result (by CBS I believe) did not include the full text of what was asserted and asked to each poll participant. I heard the full story of this instance of journalistic misconduct on Fox News.

Depending on the exact wording of the question, I think Fox News viewers are likely much better informed than those of other networks.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>Much depends on the exact wording of the question.

Here are the exact questions:

"Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"

"Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?"

"Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think . . . The majority of people favor
the US having gone to war?"

Out of FOX viewers, 80% got at least one wrong. ("Wrong" according to US and UN arms inspectors, that is.) Not surprisingly, the group that got them all wrong were the ones most likely to support the war.

>Depending on the exact wording of the question, I think Fox News viewers
>are likely much better informed than those of other networks.

Again, sorry. The opposite is true per this study.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

The correct answer to that question is yes. I understand that you'd like to think the question means something different than what the words say.

Quote

Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?

Fox News viewers are more likely to have heard reports of the connections and communications that were going on between them. The term "working closely" is more likely to get a positive response because of that. A broad, somewhat vague question like that is not the best for making the conclusion you make.

Quote

Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think . . . The majority of people favor the US having gone to war?

Did the question actually include the 3 dots (...)? Why would that be needed? Why would everything in the question preceeding the dots be included, if not to shape a response? It is absolutely another example of journalistic misconduct. I think a respondent to the poll is actually more likely to want to answer a different question - whether they are in favor of the war. I see the 'approval of the war' results reported quite often on Fox News. I also have seen in-depth interviews of pollster firms discussing the pitfalls of polls, and how they are commonly misused and misreported. That reporting was on Fox.

So, thanks for posting the exact wording of the questions (although I'd still like to know if 3 dots were in the question) so that I could show that the results you claim are bogus.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>The correct answer to that question is yes.

I know you believe that, but the poll went with the actual correct answer as determined by the head of the US inspection team - and he is a more authoritative source than you are.

That's the way it should be. If a poll asks "Was 9/11 pulled off by the Jews?" the correct answer is no - even if there are websites who very much want you to believe that they were behind it, and even if several of the passengers on the planes/security personnel at the airports were jewish.

>Did the question actually include the 3 dots (...)? Why would that be needed?

That's an ellipsis. I left out the multiple choice answers that were not chosen.

>so that I could show that the results you claim are bogus.

I'll put you in that 80% of FOX viewers then.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>The correct answer to that question is yes.

I know you believe that, but the poll went with the actual correct answer as determined by the head of the US inspection team - and he is a more authoritative source than you are.

That person was likely answering a different question than asked - which is a common pitfall of such polls. Just because he should have known better doesn't change that. Can't you even admit that there were in fact some WMD found, even if it wasn't much and was old?

Why would all the stuff before the ellipsis be needed in the question, if not to color the response?

Again, sorry, you are wrong.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>Can't you even admit that there were in fact some WMD found, even if
>it wasn't much and was old?

Only if you admit that the Jews were behind 9/11. It makes as much sense, and the evidence points to it as strongly.

I think perhaps you might eventually get to admit what David Kay already has - "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." If it really bothers you that you might have been wrong, you might take the tack that Bush took - "So what's the difference? The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

>Again, sorry, you are wrong.

Then the score will remain the same on the overall disinformation that FOX viewers believe. I'll let the readers here decide whether to believe you or our chief WMD inspector (and our president) on the issue.

[rushmc 18]

As I said, just follow the money. And there is one very interesting quote made by one of the two that the article is about. Something related to bringing down the industrialized countries.

Just Follow The Money

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

Oh, and I look forward to the critque of the soruce

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Oh, and you had better by more carbon credits if you own a Prius

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Mr Strong (not the one in skydiving) might be a hero of yours??
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Strong_072402.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>Can't you even admit that there were in fact some WMD found, even if
>it wasn't much and was old?

Only if you admit that the Jews were behind 9/11. It makes as much sense, and the evidence points to it as strongly.

I think perhaps you might eventually get to admit what David Kay already has - "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." If it really bothers you that you might have been wrong, you might take the tack that Bush took - "So what's the difference? The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

>Again, sorry, you are wrong.

Then the score will remain the same on the overall disinformation that FOX viewers believe. I'll let the readers here decide whether to believe you or our chief WMD inspector (and our president) on the issue.

It is understandable that the chief WMD inspector and the president don't consider the WMD found there to be significant. I agree with that. But the question wasn't asked in that way, it was a straightforward question, with a simple answer. Viewers of Fox News are better informed than most, and will be more likely to know there was in fact some found. If a more specific question was asked such as, "Were any WMD at ALL found in Iraq?" a different answer would result.

I'd like to think we can agree on this, but since it shows you to be wrong in your assertion about Fox News viewers being uninformed, I don't think it will happen.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

>Can't you even admit that there were in fact some WMD found, even if
>it wasn't much and was old?

Only if you admit that the Jews were behind 9/11. It makes as much sense, and the evidence points to it as strongly.

I think perhaps you might eventually get to admit what David Kay already has - "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." If it really bothers you that you might have been wrong, you might take the tack that Bush took - "So what's the difference? The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

>Again, sorry, you are wrong.

Then the score will remain the same on the overall disinformation that FOX viewers believe. I'll let the readers here decide whether to believe you or our chief WMD inspector (and our president) on the issue.

It is understandable that the chief WMD inspector and the president don't consider the WMD found there to be significant. I agree with that. But the question wasn't asked in that way, it was a straightforward question, with a simple answer. Viewers of Fox News are better informed than most, and will be more likely to know there was in fact some found. If a more specific question was asked such as, "Were any WMD at ALL found in Iraq?" a different answer would result.

I'd like to think we can agree on this, but since it shows you to be wrong in your assertion about Fox News viewers being uninformed, I don't think it will happen.

Also interesting to note that a survey of Fox News watchers show that only 38% self proclaim themselves to be conservatives. The remaining 62% say they are more liberal. The numbers show the the 62% represent more watchers than all watcher of CNN

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>It is understandable that the chief WMD inspector and the president
>don't consider the WMD found there to be significant.

Bush didn't say the WMD's that were found were insignificant, he said "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Unless you want to start redefining the word "not", and unless you want to argue with both our president and our chief arms inspector, the FOX viewers were answering that question incorrectly.

>Viewers of Fox News are better informed than most . . .

Unfortunately this poll indicates they are actually not measuring up to your beliefs.

>?I'd like to think we can agree on this . . .

As long as you are claiming the opposite of what has been stated by both Bush and Kay, I am afraid we will not. Kay suggested that Bush should be "confronting and coming clean with the American people. He should say we were mistaken and I am determined to find out why." Our president has (fortunately) taken his advice; I hope someday his supporters do too.

Please feel free to start another thread to discuss the existence of WMD's, or feel free to add to the several hundred already on this forum. Going forward I think I will return to global warming issues.

[billvon 2,400]

> As I said, just follow the money.

Is it your opinion that environmental organizations/companies (say, Evergreen Solar) have more money than the oil and coal industries? If so, your take on things might be reasonable.

> Mr Strong (not the one in skydiving) might be a hero of yours??

No. Why?

[speedy 0]

Quote

Is it your opinion that environmental organizations/companies (say, Evergreen Solar) have more money than the oil and coal industries? If so, your take on things might be reasonable.

Why would they need to have more moey than the oil or coal industries? If there is money to be made promoting Solar is better than coal and oil then they will do it.

Another question... How long do your solar panels have to run before they pay back the energy used to build them, transport them etc. ? Energy that was no doubt supplied by fossil fuels.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Why would they need to have more moey than the oil or coal industries? If there is money to be made promoting Solar is better than coal and oil then they will do it.

Because the majority of scientists support anthropogenic global warming. Now if its all about money (and we know that oil companies are paying for their own research groups) the GW alarmists must have a huge amount more money than big oil in order to get such a consensus among scientists.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/

From the article

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

...but hey, one liners and facey thingys, well hell .

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>How long do your solar panels have to run before they pay back the
>energy used to build them, transport them etc. ?

Between 18 months (amorphous) and 3 years (crystalline.) Oddly a big factor in the payback time is the aluminum frame, not the cells themselves.

[speedy 0]

I have wondered why, here in Germany, although Solar power is pushed no end, you don't see the government buildings installing the panel on their flat roofs.
Here in Germany you can sell back the excess power you generate at a price higher than what you pay for electricity from the major suppliers. This implies solar power is a no lose situation. Looking around you see solar panels installed either on farmers buildings or on communication complexes. I guess the communication complexes need backup power when the grid fails. But why the farmers?
Even more important for me is why a solar panel system for my house would cost around 30,000 euros. At my current electricity bill it would take me 30 years to recover the cost (when all my needs are covered with solar). Why should I go solar?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl