Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
You see, this is what drives me crazy, the viewpoint that if you don't agree with me you're ignorant end of debate and discussion.
|
It depends on why someone disagrees. If they disagree based on reason and evidence and such then there's a discussion to be had.
But as you can see that's not the case. Direct questions and requests for support of claims go ignored. Then CB posts that 52% of a group of people don't accept something as if that has any relevance to the actual validity of that thing. That's one of the reasons I posted that graph; to illustrate that popular opinion isn't a measure of the validity of something.
If someone refuses to engage in a discussion, they're the ones ending the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Especially in terms of this climate gate. At the end of the day these emails have done harm to the credibility of the argument about carbon emissions.
|
That's what some people want you to believe as they froth about these emails, but why do you say that? What exactly in the emails calls any science into question? Even if it is found that one of them refused FOI requests to people who are getting the information just to "find" manufactured problems to try and win mindshare in the media doesn't mean the science isn't valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I believe that carbon emissions are harmful, however I also believe that part of the climate issues are based around the natural cyclical changes in the planet.
|
Of course there's cycles, you don't think they're aware of those and try to take those into account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I also believe that based on the climategate emails that we have to question the reliability of the science directly effected by those involved and it has to be independantly verified before any action is taken that will harm economies.
|
Again which emails exactly call the reliability of the science into question? Be specific.
It has already received independent verification. Peer review, separate and completely independent data sets that agree, hundreds of thousands of papers by thousands of scientists with observations from a dozen different and independent scientific disciplines all saying the same thing. ZERO papers with alternate theories to explain all the observations. Consilience is a powerful thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
How does the overall belief, or lack thereof, in the existance of a creator over that of evolution in any way, shape or form, have anything to do with those that question how much man has had/is having an impact on the climate?????
|
Who said it did?
Calgaryborn said 52% of Americans don't accept AGW, as if that had some kind of relevance. My point is that popular opinion about something does not say anything about the validity of that thing. And evolution is a perfect example of that.
(And as an aside, the graph doesn't say anything about a creator, it's just about acceptance of evolution, it's not one or the other.)