Global Warming and Evolution

I read the topic, saw an entire page of the thread descending into copious use of the word "idiot" amongst other pejoratives despite Arbalest trying to keep things running, and dropped a hint. It's up to you guys to decide how to take the hint.

If you can steer this back into a civilised debate as Outlawstar is trying instead of trying to psychoanalyse me or disrespecting the opposing side of the debate please do. If it's back to "idiot"ing one another when one of us next check this thread it's not going to be continuing, as Arbalest stated.

R
 
Spyro201 and Outlawstar ... if you really take those things as proper insults, then I'm sorry, because they're really not! I'm sure you're both decent, level-headed people. In an argument though, words like that get used for emphasis and such. Depsite the abject hysteria this relatively harmless wordplay seems to illicit in the hypersensitive folk that are the admins, it really means nothing and I'd appreciate if you didn't take it to heart :]

As for your links, Outlawstar, it's late right now and so I shall read them tomorrow and I hope we can have a better debate on it now that we've both presented our cases and backed them up (finally!).
 
CitizenGeek said:
Spyro201 and Outlawstar ... if you really take those things as proper insults, then I'm sorry, because they're really not! I'm sure you're both decent, level-headed people. In an argument though, words like that get used for emphasis and such. Depsite the abject hysteria this relatively harmless wordplay seems to illicit in the hypersensitive folk that are the admins, it really means nothing and I'd appreciate if you didn't take it to heart :]
Click to expand...

Don't worry I guessed as much.

We've pm'd in MAL, remember?
 
I actually like most people on AUKN (Aion and post-adminship Rui especially excluded) despite how awfully I treat y'all. I hate to get mushy or whatever, but the reason I spend so much time on here is because no matter how absurd the argument is (and debating with Outlawstar is almost universally absurd) it's always good craic and I really rather enjoy heated, impassioned debates (like on topics like Eva and FF:AC :p) and AUKN has them in abundance :]
 
CitizenGeek said:
I actually like most people on AUKN (Aion and post-adminship Rui especially excluded) despite how awfully I treat y'all. I hate to get mushy or whatever, but the reason I spend so much time on here is because no matter how absurd the argument is (and debating with Outlawstar is almost universally absurd) because it's always good craic and I really rather enjoy heated, impassioned debates (like on topics like Eva and FF:AC :p) and AUKN has them in abundance :]
Click to expand...

CG I see where youre coming from, your obviously passionate about your beliefs and I appreciate your half apology, 8) the reality is, no matter what you may think of me, I consider my self an extremely open-minded and inquisitive person, with an insane thirst for knowledge and truth, sometimes I think it will be an endless path, a journey that will last my whole life, it will involve changing my beliefs, it will involve questioning "facts" and inquiring deep into matters which I just dont think are quite right, and you know what?

I wouldint have it any other way:)
 
CitizenGeek said:
I actually like most people on AUKN (Aion and post-adminship Rui especially excluded) despite how awfully I treat y'all. I hate to get mushy or whatever, but the reason I spend so much time on here is because no matter how absurd the argument is (and debating with Outlawstar is almost universally absurd) it's always good craic and I really rather enjoy heated, impassioned debates (like on topics like Eva and FF:AC :p) and AUKN has them in abundance :]
Click to expand...

So ya' don't hate me!?!? Aww come here ya' big softy! *eHug*

:lol:
 
Another very interesting like with loads of other links in their, pretty much getting the point across that there is absolutely not a consensus in the scientific community about GW, and that there are very respected scientists from those that flat out deny CO2 as the culprit to those who flat out deny any current warming at all, an interesting read and one that shows clearly that this, as with most things in science is certainly not a foregone conclusion, as should not be viewed as such.

http://social.moldova.org/news/u-s-...-refute-global-warming-claims-174624-eng.html
 
Outlawstar said:
http://social.moldova.org/news/u-s-...-refute-global-warming-claims-174624-eng.html
Click to expand...

I have to say that the content of that link (and the sites it links to) are, on the whole, worthless in terms of even a half-decent perspective on climate change. They have extensive use of emotive language, no stated method, no details, no analysis. They read more like propaganda than anything else - which, as they're mostly affiliated with political sites, should be no surprise.

While it's true that there's no ubiquitous consensus, that should be no surprise to anyone. People like to argue with each other - this hasn't been news for a while. In a similar vein, saying "X prominent scientists disagree!" is a load of rubbish too. Note they don't say who these "prominent" scientists are, for starters. Also bear in mind that it's quite easy to phrase interpretive questions, to the extent that, had I the time, resources and inclination, I could get 1000 "prominent" scientists to say that smoking isn't bad for you. And as long as no-one looked too closely at the methods used, I could get away with it.

Incidentally, some of the tertiary sites were quite interesting, but they didn't exactly back up the position in the ways they were indicated to.


Tbh, I'm not really bothered with debates over climate change. I just hate bad science.
 
Ramadahl said:
Outlawstar said:
http://social.moldova.org/news/u-s-...-refute-global-warming-claims-174624-eng.html
Click to expand...

I have to say that the content of that link (and the sites it links to) are, on the whole, worthless in terms of even a half-decent perspective on climate change. They have extensive use of emotive language, no stated method, no details, no analysis. They read more like propaganda than anything else - which, as they're mostly affiliated with political sites, should be no surprise.

While it's true that there's no ubiquitous consensus, that should be no surprise to anyone. People like to argue with each other - this hasn't been news for a while. In a similar vein, saying "X prominent scientists disagree!" is a load of rubbish too. Note they don't say who these "prominent" scientists are, for starters. Also bear in mind that it's quite easy to phrase interpretive questions, to the extent that, had I the time, resources and inclination, I could get 1000 "prominent" scientists to say that smoking isn't bad for you. And as long as no-one looked too closely at the methods used, I could get away with it.

Incidentally, some of the tertiary sites were quite interesting, but they didn't exactly back up the position in the ways they were indicated to.


Tbh, I'm not really bothered with debates over climate change. I just hate bad science.
Click to expand...

That link had plenty of links to peer-reviewed papers with all the scientific and mathematic jargon you could want backing up the views expressed here, just take a bit of looking, I have a few Dloaded myself, pretty interesting stuff, always intruiges me to see all sides of a story.
 
Outlawstar said:
That link had plenty of links to peer-reviewed papers with all the scientific and mathematic jargon you could want backing up the views expressed here, just take a bit of looking, I have a few Dloaded myself, pretty interesting stuff, always intruiges me to see all sides of a story.
Click to expand...
Well, seeing all sides of a story is certainly a good thing.

Links to peer-reviewed papers? Some, certainly, although they're fairly well buried behind the uselss U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works website, and various blog and newspaper links. Like I said before though, some of the tertiary (or quarternary) sites were interesting, but didn't exactly back up the position in the ways they were indicated to. The previous sites often indicated such articles to be definitive research, where in reality they provided information that could lend itself to many conclusions, and had their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
Back
Top