OMIGOSH! Articles! On Global Warming that DONT SUPPORT THE THEORY?!?!?!?!?!? Options

[pebkac]

I said legitimate, and yes, I've looked for articles. There is one by the NOAA (and I've seen rebuttals) and a couple out there by a few scientist (then again, I've seen ones against the claim by scientists). The one scientist who is pointing out that warming is cyclical, no one wants to listen to because he isn't "published" But they will listen to the UN, because we all know how spot on they've been in the past.

My point is, there are high fluting people on both sides of the argument. Who's right? Who knows. Arguing logic isn't going to go anywhere, except circles.

Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 articles and didn't find one that disagreed with the consensus position.

[impala454]

My problem isn't your argumentative nature. I rather like that. My problem is with your constant straw manning and taking people's arguments out of context.

I mean, here you totally take me and hartmann's arguments out of context and accuse us making microsoft conspiracy theories. Here, I'm not sure if you genuinely misunderstand Cathryn's arguments or if you really were trying to straw man her, but you totally misrepresent her point of view and when she points that out to you, you still insist that your version of her argument is the correct one. And then in this thread, she makes a topical argument backed by sources and you accuse her of trying to control everyone's life.

I mean shit, I understand that it's the internet and misunderstandings happen (and I'm as guilty of them as anyone else is), but lately you've been taking it to a totally different level. I always enjoy a good debate, as long as the person I'm debating responds to what people are actually saying.

I didn't accuse you or hartmann of making microsoft conspiracy theories in that thread, and I didn't misunderstand what Cat said in the other thread. You're welcome to add your commentary to those threads if you feel otherwise, but I see zero point in discussing other threads in this thread just because you don't like the way I post. You can buzz word me all you want, but either shut me up by proving something or get over it IMHO.

As far as the topic at hand... this planet has had ice ages/warm periods/etc long before we ever spewed a single particle of CO2 from a machine. To think that now because we're here temperatures are supposed to remain perfectly constant is pretty ludicrous.

Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 articles and didn't find one that disagreed with the consensus position.

Oh so now total quantity of articles is what proves the theory? "We have more articles than you so we win!" If this was how it worked we'd still think the world was flat.

[Hartmann]

Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 articles and didn't find one that disagreed with the consensus position.

That statement in and of itself is biased don't you think? She surveyed a random 928 articles?

I mean, I looked for five minutes and found this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[pebkac]

I didn't accuse you or hartmann of making microsoft conspiracy theories in that thread, and I didn't misunderstand what Cat said in the other thread. You're welcome to add your commentary to those threads if you feel otherwise, but I see zero point in discussing other threads in this thread just because you don't like the way I post. You can buzz word me all you want, but either shut me up by proving something or get over it IMHO.

You can't prove an opinion impala.

I agree that the thread doesn't need to be threadjacked because of this nor do I really feel like continuing this conversation.

Oh so now total quantity of articles is what proves the theory? "We have more articles than you so we win!" If this was how it worked we'd still think the world was flat.

No, it doesn't prove that global warming is true and the author of the article I posted notes this at the end. I was responding to the claim that there isn't a scientific consensus of global warming specifically Hartmann's claim that it was more difficult for him to find articles supporting global warming than it is to find articles dissenting.

That statement in and of itself is biased don't you think? She surveyed a random 928 articles?

I mean, I looked for five minutes and found this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Oreskes only surveyed a random sample of published and peer-reviewed articles in journals in ISI Web of Knowledge. That probably wouldn't have included the link that you posted or even anything by that petition's authors because, well, they aren't climatologists. Google their names. It was written by two chemists and an astrophysicist. I wouldn't call them authoritative sources.

[Hartmann]

Oreskes only surveyed a random sample of published and peer-reviewed articles in journals in ISI Web of Knowledge. That probably wouldn't have included the link that you posted or even anything by that petition's authors because, well, they aren't climatologists. Google their names. It was written by two chemists and an astrophysicist. I wouldn't call them authoritative sources.

I wouldn't call them authoritative, you're right. However, Google some of the names on the petition.

[impala454]

You can't prove an opinion impala.

accusation != opinion

I agree that the thread doesn't need to be threadjacked because of this nor do I really feel like continuing this conversation.

good idea.

No, it doesn't prove that global warming is true and the author of the article I posted notes this at the end. I was responding to the claim that there isn't a scientific consensus of global warming specifically Hartmann's claim that it was more difficult for him to find articles supporting global warming than it is to find articles dissenting.

Well that's fine then. So finding a large quantity of articles means that there's an "official scientific consensus"? Did you read all these articles? Or do you just believe it because someone else said they read them? Now someone else will release an article saying that they read the article about the guy who read all the articles . (I'm messin with ya man)