Difference between revisions of "File talk:WToon8.JPG"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think that facts are the global warming models have underestimated the effects that we are now seeing. Scientist's traditionally to not 'hide' data that contradict their theories. If you want to find contradictory data, I suggest you get into the 'science game' and find the contradictory data yourself. Politics is the game where you hide data to support your views - not science. --[[User:Scasey|Scasey]] 10:12, 3 December 2009 (EST) | I think that facts are the global warming models have underestimated the effects that we are now seeing. Scientist's traditionally to not 'hide' data that contradict their theories. If you want to find contradictory data, I suggest you get into the 'science game' and find the contradictory data yourself. Politics is the game where you hide data to support your views - not science. --[[User:Scasey|Scasey]] 10:12, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ||
:Well, guess what? Your boys are playing the science game with the politics game on the side; they've hidden the data, they've altered the data; they destroyed the data; and that was done by their own admission, either from their own emails or from what they've admitted to the news media in the past week. Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and some have shown the world that they'll do anything for money, or to advance a political agenda, or both. Which leads to the question: are YOU here for the same reasons? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:38, 3 December 2009 (EST) | :Well, guess what? Your boys are playing the science game with the politics game on the side; they've hidden the data, they've altered the data; they destroyed the data; and that was done by their own admission, either from their own emails or from what they've admitted to the news media in the past week. Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and some have shown the world that they'll do anything for money, or to advance a political agenda, or both. Which leads to the question: are YOU here for the same reasons? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:38, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | :: Time to brush up on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies logical fallacies]. This one is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Ad hominem]. As a follow-up, the action of a few individuals are not necessarily indicative of the industry as a whole. You must supply the evidence that contradicts the predictions of the climate change models. What evidence can you point to that refutes the predictions of global warming models? Clearly, this discussion needs to move elsewhere. --[[User:Scasey|Scasey]] 19:20, 3 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:20, December 4, 2009
I think that facts are the global warming models have underestimated the effects that we are now seeing. Scientist's traditionally to not 'hide' data that contradict their theories. If you want to find contradictory data, I suggest you get into the 'science game' and find the contradictory data yourself. Politics is the game where you hide data to support your views - not science. --Scasey 10:12, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Well, guess what? Your boys are playing the science game with the politics game on the side; they've hidden the data, they've altered the data; they destroyed the data; and that was done by their own admission, either from their own emails or from what they've admitted to the news media in the past week. Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and some have shown the world that they'll do anything for money, or to advance a political agenda, or both. Which leads to the question: are YOU here for the same reasons? Karajou 11:38, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Time to brush up on logical fallacies. This one is Ad hominem. As a follow-up, the action of a few individuals are not necessarily indicative of the industry as a whole. You must supply the evidence that contradicts the predictions of the climate change models. What evidence can you point to that refutes the predictions of global warming models? Clearly, this discussion needs to move elsewhere. --Scasey 19:20, 3 December 2009 (EST)
