I would agree, but I think I am more than open to discuss this here and calling our debate the equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall is insulting. Soooo, I have to go back at your points.
So you maintain the statements in italics below are "not at all what I said or representive of the points I was trying to make" ... allow me to refresh you on our discussion:
---
1.
You took issue with how a climate change article references scientists and imply that they should provide us with direction of who are the scientists?
You are right. You didn't imply, you outright said it.
----
2.
You asked me "WHICH scientists? What are their fields? ", I said "look it up"
I am really not sure how I miscontrued that. And if you meant to imply that others should be asking these questions, then I can easily be implying that others should be looking it up as well. There is no white-washing by the media stories. Everything is provided to find an answer.
---
3. your skepticism is the engine of science, but you/one has to actually LOOK for the answers instead of complaining that they were not provided.
See the first sentence in your above quote "89-it's not blind skepticism because I don't like the conclusions."
Also this is a compliment, an attempt to bridge our discussion - since we are gradually merging to the same point. I am saying there is NOTHING wrong with skepticism, as long as it is not empty (and I am not implying that yours is).
---
4.
However, my "beef" with those questions is the implied suggestion that the news story lacks credibility. That the information in question is less true...
To me your points imply that the story lacks credibility... again, maybe it is just me...
---
5.
your questions are brought up as a critique regularly, in a manner of debate that is seen in the Ben Stein Expelled debates (see discussions between the experts and the people behind the movie). Huh?
Ok. I will do the leg-work for you, sorry if I wasn't clear...
First, the debates here on CalgaryPuck:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=56139&page=14
Or see the bottom here:
http://www.realdetroitweekly.com/article_4101.shtml
Now, I am not accusing YOU of this here, I am saying that your questions used in lesser minds can lead to ignorance of the truth. A defence mechanism for hearing something you don't like.
AND...
---
6. And as for money influencing results, yes, you are right, money influences results a HUGE number of studies. However, my little point was just that the argument that ALL of the scientists were paid to push the climate-change agenda is absurd
Even when I say you are right you take issue with it! I was merely trying to further explain my earlier point when I said:
"...As far as a "conspiracy theory" that they are all being influenced by some greater power, then that is another issue all together..."
and you replied with,
I was merely trying to take this point out of this discussion because obviously many studies have an agenda, have been funded by those with agendas, or have no agenda whatsoever. So yes, it is naive to think that money doesn't influence results, but I was never making that point.
Anyways, good chat.