Difference between revisions of "File talk:WToon8.JPG"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | ||
| + | :::The evidence is in those emails, as well as the documentation that those people at East Anglia are desperately trying to hide. And why should I believe any climate change model that was created by such people? From what I see here, you're trying to push their lies on this site. Bye. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:31, 4 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | :::: Again - what evidence can you point to that refutes the predictions of global warming models? See [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091204/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_adapting Global warming may require higher dams, stilts] as examples of people's concerns. --[[User:Scasey|Scasey]] 00:35, 4 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | :::::Again, you read my answer; now I suggest you accept it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:38, 4 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Since you're unwilling to accept the fact that your buddy scientists have engaged in lying in order to get their hands on some dough, how about some evidence that suggests that you're OK on a personal level with lying? The IPs you registered: one from Missouri, one from San Jose, California, and a third from Lancaster, California...and it is that third one that is most troubling. Do you honestly think that NASA is going to let you into their computer system just so you could do your rants here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:56, 4 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 05:56, 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)
- The evidence is in those emails, as well as the documentation that those people at East Anglia are desperately trying to hide. And why should I believe any climate change model that was created by such people? From what I see here, you're trying to push their lies on this site. Bye. Karajou 00:31, 4 December 2009 (EST)
- Again - what evidence can you point to that refutes the predictions of global warming models? See Global warming may require higher dams, stilts as examples of people's concerns. --Scasey 00:35, 4 December 2009 (EST)
- Again, you read my answer; now I suggest you accept it. Karajou 00:38, 4 December 2009 (EST)
- Again - what evidence can you point to that refutes the predictions of global warming models? See Global warming may require higher dams, stilts as examples of people's concerns. --Scasey 00:35, 4 December 2009 (EST)
- The evidence is in those emails, as well as the documentation that those people at East Anglia are desperately trying to hide. And why should I believe any climate change model that was created by such people? From what I see here, you're trying to push their lies on this site. Bye. Karajou 00:31, 4 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)
Since you're unwilling to accept the fact that your buddy scientists have engaged in lying in order to get their hands on some dough, how about some evidence that suggests that you're OK on a personal level with lying? The IPs you registered: one from Missouri, one from San Jose, California, and a third from Lancaster, California...and it is that third one that is most troubling. Do you honestly think that NASA is going to let you into their computer system just so you could do your rants here? Karajou 00:56, 4 December 2009 (EST)
