Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 9 of 16
You're welcome, but no thanks necessary. You said you were expresssing opinions and not citing fact or science; that's laudable here, where people express opinions are claim them as fact with no backup. It's only fair to recognize honesty like that, whether we agree or not. And your points and questions WERE clearly stated, that's also nice to see.
(Just 'cuz, I'm adopting "climate change", since "global warming" seems to mean to so many uneducated or deliberately ignorant people that if it's cold, that must be wrong. Tho' I believe it is actual "warming", what that MEANS is that climates are changing in different areas in different ways, and more drastic, unusual climate change is taking place as a result. I'm not sure if it's CO2 or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it is man made.)
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
>Well said, CantTake, and well reasoned. Although I am on the opposing side of the debate about climate change, I think you expressed yourself clearly and fairly.
Wow. Thank you, Niki.
(Just so you know, I do tend toward man-made regional warming, though I don't blame CO2. But I have no hard evidence... so I don't say much about that.)
Are you speaking of desertification?
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're welcome, but no thanks necessary. You said you were expresssing opinions and not citing fact or science; that's laudable here, where people express opinions are claim them as fact with no backup. It's only fair to recognize honesty like that, whether we agree or not. And your points and questions WERE clearly stated, that's also nice to see.
(Just 'cuz, I'm adopting "climate change", since "global warming" seems to mean to so many uneducated or deliberately ignorant people that if it's cold, that must be wrong. Tho' I believe it is actual "warming", what that MEANS is that climates are changing in different areas in different ways, and more drastic, unusual climate change is taking place as a result. I'm not sure if it's CO2 or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it is man made.)
Which is why it should have been referred to as "Global Climate Change" all along. All the models I've ever seen predict colder colds, hotter hots, and more drastic precipitation events AND droughts, as well as stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, as the "energy potential" in the warmer air increases.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, goodie; someone who really GETS IT! I'd suggest keeping reminding our nonbelievers that, but it wouldn't make any difference, would it? Yes, giving it "global warming" was a really dumb move; they should have anticipated how stupidly people would interpret that. But then scientists probably forget how stupid the general public is...more fools they! 
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fucking computers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki - I have been careful to keep saying "climate change" throughout this thread, for the exact reasons you say. Global warming is so not the right term.
CTS - I guess it depends on what you're after. I tend to like productive discussions that reveal Truth, so I figure that if one is going to knock a scientific or economic or ANY hypothesis, one ought to have defensible reasons. And yes, it is quite hypocritical to hold others to standards that you do not apply to yourself.
You do not need to be an Official Board Certified Science (or Economics) Expert Theory Maker to hold yourself to the standard of proof.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, it is rather ironic to say that you dismiss the evidence out of hand because you don't accept its standards of evidence, but you hold your beliefs tight even while admitting you have no evidentiary basis for those beliefs, just a hunch.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good for you, Mal4; I wish we all did. At least then we'd be discussing something which deniers couldn't holler "but it's freezing here, so much for global warming!"
As to CTS' theories and posts, I disagree. She said the scientific evidence wasn't empirical enough FOR HER to be completely convinced. She also said Quote:
and
Less confidence does not mean the hypothesis is dismissed. It just means I am much more open to the possibility that it may be wrong.Quote:
If I dismissed evidence, I would be a GW denier. As it is, I am a GW skeptic.
She also questions why Big Oil seems to be in favor of believing in climate change, and that DOES seem a contradiction. Everyone has the right to notice contradictions and question them. I think more of our hard-liners should be open to questioning discrepancies and contradictions.
I think everyone has the right to question anything, without having to back up why they question it specifically and cite facts. At no point has CTS stated she categorically refuses to accept climate change, she says she's still waiting for evidence that makes her more confident it's valid. What's wrong with that?
I don't see any "dismissing" of evidence "out of hand", nor holding beliefs tight, just questioning. I find that far more admirable than those who come here and just state their beliefs as FACT, reject actual facts, have no backup, and refuse to see even the possibility they may be wrong.
I think the charges are unfair. Just my opinion.
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Mikey, for clouting the concept to where I could understand it, cause this whole discussion went over my head so fast it spun.
I have my areas of competence, but for damned sure that ain't one of em!
Y'all need to remember that in order for the folks you wanna reach with these arguments to "get" them, you have GOT to get it in a format they can wrap their minds around, honestly.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't say she couldn't question, Niki. But are you saying I can't question her questions?
(This is getting fun. 
)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME